Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Health and Personal Social Services

Mr. Wakeham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be a fall in total public spending on the health and personal social services in 1977–78 compared with the current year.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): No, Sir. The total public spending planned for the health and personal social services in England is £7 million greater in 1977–78 than in 1976–77 at 1976 survey prices.

Mr. Wakeham: I wonder whether the Secretary of State could reconcile that with the figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper, which indicate a fall.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, indeed. The figures for health and personal social services took account of the estimated revenue from the levy on motorists through vehicle insurers. The net amount of these services will, therefore, be higher by this amount—in England, £15½ million in 1977–78 and £34 million annually thereafter, at 1976 prices. Therefore, that

factor was not included in the figures that the hon. Gentleman read.

Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister agree that reduction in public spending is assisted by the income derived from pay beds? What steps is he taking to ensure that the Health Services Board carries out the Goodman proposals, fulfils the undertakings that the Minister gave to the House and carries out the requirements of the Act?

Mr. Ennals: First, the revenue for the year about which we are talking, 1977–78, would have been very modest indeed in terms of pay beds. Secondly, the Health Services Board is, of course, carrying out absolutely to the letter the conditions laid down by the legislation of this House. I have very great confidence in the Chairman and members of the Health Services Board, who are doing their job very well.

Widows

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report on recent meetings between Ministers and representatives of widows' organisations.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): On 9th March I spoke at the "Fair Play for Widows" rally organised by the National Association of Widows, and on 11th March my right hon. Friend met the Chairman of the War Widows' Association of Great Britain. In each case we listened with interest to the views of widows on a variety of issues.

Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that we are very disappointed that those representations have clearly had no effect whatsoever? Does he accept that as the personal allowance increase in the Budget is less than 10 per cent. and as widows' pensions seem bound to rise by more than that, the tax position of widows will get even worse later this year than it is now? Will he make sure that his Treasury friends do something about this in the Finance Bill?

Mr. Orme: I am well aware, as are the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), that the issue of taxation was raised very strongly by widows at the rally and with my right hon. Friend. Those views were passed


on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. However, for the fourth time since we took office in 1974, there has been a rise, and the real value of these benefits is now about 15 per cent. higher than it was in October 1973.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No doubt the Minister will recollect that he got a very rough ride indeed at the widows' conference at Central Hall. Will he realise and accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) that the great burden of their complaint was that they now have to pay tax at a ridiculously low level of income—indeed, almost at the same level as their pension? Why has nothing been done about this in the Budget, in view of the very strong representations made by the widows, and presumably made to the Minister at the meeting to which he referred?

Mr. Orme: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no one came out of that rally—including himself—smelling of roses. The ladies concerned were very forthright. I make no objection to that. In fact, following the rally I received from Mrs. June Hemer, the honorary general secretary of the National Association of Widows, a very generous letter of thanks for attending the rally. The points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised were passed on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister let the House know how much better off widows with children are because of the new Child Benefit Scheme, and how much administrative expenditure has been involved in implementing that great improvement in their income?

Mr. Orme: There has been no loss from the transfer to child benefit to the widows.

Child Benefit

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the administration of the Child Benefit Scheme.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children are still not registered for child benefit purposes.

Mr. Ennals: The Child Benefit Scheme started yesterday, and I am satisfied with the way things have gone. Nearly 14 million children will be within the scope of the scheme. About 11 million of these are in families previously getting family allowances and, therefore, already on the record for child benefit. Of the 2·8 million children in families with only one child, about 2·4 million have claimed the benefit. We are, therefore, only about 400,000 claims short out of nearly 14 million. I hope that many of these will claim now that the scheme has begun.

Mrs. Chalker: I wonder whether the Secretary of State can explain to the House and to all single-parent families why Form CH11 for single-parent families was not issued earlier than the middle of March so that these families could claim the additional 50p. In many social security offices and in no post office that I have come across is the form available now that the scheme has started. The situation is an utter disgrace.

Mr. Ennals: That is rubbish, because people were able to make their claim, they have made their claim, and we have written to all those who have not made their claim to make certain that they get their full entitlement.

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House when every post office will have the relevant form for every category of both parents and children who wish to claim any of these benefits?

Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that almost every post office has those forms. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] It is true. We have made a careful check of the Post Office. I know that every now and again it has been possible to find a post office that has run out of supplies of the leaflet, but by dint of the fact that up to yesterday only 400,000 people out of a total of 14 million had not claimed one can see the extent to which people have known of their entitlement. I have no doubt as a result of the publicity that has been given to the launching of the scheme, and of Press conferences held by my right hon. Friend and by myself, many of the 400,000 who have not claimed will now do so. I believe that we shall achieve almost 100 per cent. take-up within the next few weeks.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. The fact is that it is 400,000 out of the 2,800,000 who had to claim. The rest did not have to make a claim. Is not the fact that one person in seven has not claimed a universal benefit of this sort a disgrace and a real reflection on the way in which the Child Benefit Scheme has been bungled from its very start?

Mr. Ennals: Some of the 400,000 who have not claimed will be children who will be leaving school at Easter—they have probably left this week—and others will be leaving school in June. They have 10 weeks in which to claim, and I hope that they will do so. That accounts for a large number of those who have not claimed.
It is about time that the Opposition stopped nit-picking on this issue. In spite of our economic problems, we have been able to make a start with what all of us recognise is an extremely important social change. Not only will it provide immediate help for the poorer families by providing for the first child in every family, but it is the basis on which we shall be able increasingly to channel help to families. It is about time that people on both sides of the House who genuinely believe in the scheme gave a welcome to it instead of indulging in all the nit-picking that is discouraging people from applying.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent consultations he has had with organisations representing the disabled.

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled is in close and constant touch with organisations representing disabled people. I myself had a meeting earlier this month with representatives of the Central Council for the Disabled and have also recently met the ex-Service organisations concerned with helping the war disabled and representatives of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation. I shall be addressing the annual conference of BLESMA in May and, with my hon. Friend, will be maintaining the closest possible contact with all the voluntary organisations in the disablement field.

Mr. Neubert: What answer does the right hon. Gentleman have for young people newly and severely disabled with no hope of providing a vehicle from their own resources? What chance have they of anything remotely approaching a normal mobile way of life under the right hon. Gentleman's present policy?

Mr. Ennals: I have said that it is our anxiety to ensure that no one is immobilised as a result of the withdrawal of the tricycles. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of people who receive that assistance will be increased greatly as a result of the mobility allowance.
With regard to the particular point made by the hon. Gentleman, my reply is that I have been having discussions with the Central Council for the Disabled to examine the possibility of further assistance to recipients of mobility allowance to enable them to use the allowance to purchase a suitable vehicle. The discussions are proceeding. It is too early to make any announcement.

Mr. Pavitt: Has my right hon. Friend, or our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the disabled, had any discussions with organisations of dentists that are trying to do something for those who are mentally or physically handicapped? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a disgraceful blot on the Government's otherwise first-class record that those who are either mentally or physically disabled are not able to get dental treatment under the National Health Service?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has received a deputation on precisely this subject from my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues. I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving the matter careful consideration.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his Budget? The imposition of the tax on petrol means that many of the disabled who still have a vehicle will be less mobile than before.

Mr. Ennals: This is a matter about which there is consultation. The mobility allowance will be uprated when we come to November of this year, and it will not


be long before I shall announce the uprating figure.

Mr. Clemitson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the criteria for mobility allowance are being applied consistently?

Mr. Ennals: I know that this problem has been worrying my hon. Friend, and I believe that he is in correspondence with our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the disabled. If there are ways in which it is thought that we can make the criteria more acceptable, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do that.

Mr. Fell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the operation of the orange dot parking scheme for the disabled?

Mr. Ennals: I think the hon. Gentleman will know that this scheme has recently been extended. Perhaps it would help if I were to write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the full details.

Mr. Fell: I thank the Minister.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he plans to introduce further legislation to assist the disabled.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Important advances have been made in legislative provision in recent years. Further improvements are necessary to help disabled people and will be carried through when resources allow. Regulations to extend the non-contributory invalidity pension to disabled housewives from November of this year are now before the National Insurance Advisory Committee. We shall also be making regulations this summer to provide the attendance allowance for foster-parents caring for severely handicapped children.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not clear that the mobility of the disabled will be affected adversely by the increase of 5½p per gallon in petrol tax? Instead of introducing new legislation, is the Minister prepared to listen not only to Liberal Party Members but to those representing the disabled, with a view either to an interim increase in the mobility allowance or to finding a way in which the disabled will not have to pay the additional 5½p?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend has already commented on that. We appreciate the importance of mobility costs to disabled people. We are in the process of trebling my Department's expenditure on mobility for the disabled. At the same time we have said that we shall increase the mobility allowance, not only in amount but in value, this year. The hon. Member can be assured that his request will be considered carefully.

Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend agree that much can be done for disabled people, particularly those confined to their homes, within the confines of present legislation? Having seen the scheme in Rossendale for decorating the homes of the disabled, will the Minister approach voluntary groups and local authorities in other areas and suggest that they use job creation schemes to ensure that projects such as that in Rossendale are extended to other parts of the country?

Mr. Morris: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency recently. The Disablement Income Group in that area has, with the help of the job creation scheme, operated a remarkable programme of help for disabled people. I agree that the scheme is one that could be studied with profit in localities throughout the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his part in the making of the scheme.

Sir John Rodgers: Will the Minister make it clear that the word "disabled" is not confined to people with handicaps and problems of movement but includes people such as the deaf and the blind?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the hon. Member's senior office in one of the main organisations helping the blind. I agree with him that people believe that there is such a being as a standard disabled person. It would sometimes help employers to meet their commitments if they realised that we were talking not only of people in wheelchairs but about those who are blind or deaf or who have other severe handicaps.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my hon. Friend give a progess report to the House about the modern hearing aid provided privately and perhaps under the National Health Service?

Mr. Morris: We are making good progress with the new behind-the-ear hearing


aid. We estimate that there will be about 1 million beneficiaries of this new provision when the phasing-in programme is complete. As the latest date for which figures are available, 175,000 people in England had received the new aid. The figure for the United Kingdom at 31st December 1976 was 215,000. That is a remarkable achievement for people who are hard of hearing.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister reconsider his answers to the Leader of the Scottish National Party and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about the increase in petrol tax? Is he aware that for seven months disabled drivers must pay the increased cost of petrol because the Liberal Party did not oppose it last night? Is it not time for this to be reconsidered? I know that it may require legislation, but why should disabled drivers have to pay for seven months?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member must appreciate that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already said that we are in consultation. There is nothing that I can add at present, other than to say that it was the present Government who restored the petrol allowance for disabled drivers and who doubled it in 1975.

Doctors' Lists (Removal of Names)

Mr. Stan Crowther: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the working of paragraph 10 of the terms of service for general medical practitioners, under which a practitioner is not required to assign any reason for the removal of a patient from his list; and whether he has any evidence of anxiety caused to elderly people, in certain cases, by the operation of this paragraph.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I recognise that removal from a doctor's list may sometimes be upsetting, particularly to elderly people, but general practitioners are independent contractors who have a freedom to choose their patients, as patients have the freedom to choose their doctors.

Mr. Crowther: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are at least grounds for suspicion that a minority of general practitioners rather resent having elderly people on their lists because, naturally, they take up more time and attention of the doctor than do younger people, and that such patients are removed from the list without justifiable cause?
In any case, is it not a matter of common sense and, indeed, common justice that once a doctor has accepted a patient on his list and, therefore, undertaken at public expense to provide the necessary care and attention when needed, the doctor should at least be required to give a reason if he wishes to remove that patient from his list?

Mr. Moyle: If there are general practitioners who take the attitude that my hon. Friend describes, the evidence indicates that they are a small minority. If my hon. Friend has a particular allegation to make, I shall be grateful for the details so that I can look into the case.
On the question of accepting people on to a list, from time to time there are disagreements between patients and doctors, but it is not obvious that the announcement of reasons in public as to why people are removed from a list would be to the advantage of patients.

Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister ready to condemn the slur on doctors by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther)? Will he accept that the really important point in this matter is that there should be a foolproof arrangement for patients who have been asked to leave a doctor's list to be covered by some other doctor, and would not the arrangement between a doctor and a patient whom he did not wish to have on his list be intolerable if it were forced to continue?

Mr. Moyle: I did not understand my hon. Friend to be making any slur about doctors in general. However, I do not accept that all doctors are beyond criticism. There are procedures whereby someone who is removed from a doctor's list and experiences difficulty in finding another doctor may apply to the family practitioners committee for help.

Elderly Mentally Infirm Patients

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue


guidance to the area health authorities covering their responsibility for the elderly mentally infirm, and the balance of responsibility between area health authorities and local government.

Mr. Ennals: Guidance on the provision of services for mental illness related to old age was issued to statutory health and local authorities in 1972. I am considering whether further advice is needed.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that an argument is developing in Sheffield between the local authority and the area health authority about the care of the elderly mentally infirm? Is he aware that the health authority claims that they do not need medical treatment and that the local authority claims that they are beyond basic care? Should not the position be clarified?

Mr. Ennals: One thing that pleases me about the dispute is that a joint working party has been established between the Sheffield Area Health Authority (Teaching) and the Sheffield Metropolitan District Council to see how they can improve the services for the elderly mentally infirm in the area. They have recently accepted the recommendation of their joint consultation committee and a joint working party has been set up to try to work out an agreement. It held its first meeting on 11th March, and I hope that an agreement will be reached on this difficult issue.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Does the Secretary of State accept that this, sadly, is an increasing problem? Is he satisfied that sufficient resources are allocated tinder the National Health Service for mental health care, particularly for the elderly?

Mr. Ennals: It is a problem in many parts of the country. In the consultation document that was sent out last year we emphasised that priority should be given to services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and particularly to the elderly mentally ill. In many regions that priority has been fully accepted. In some areas it has not been accepted as fully. I am investigating the situation as it applies region by region because it is one of the services to which priority should be given even at a time

when the growth of resources is admittedly modest.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When looking at the situation region by region, will the Secretary of State give guidance to the area health authorities, because there is some evidence that psychiatrists and geriatricians find it difficult to deal with elderly psychiatric patients because they believe that geriatric patients should be treated as psychiatric patients and that in some instances psychiatric patients should be treated as geriatric patients? Will he look at this situation, because many elderly people are suffering unnecessarily?

Mr. Ennals: I understand that there is some dispute. Our anxiety is to ensure that the elderly mentally infirm should be able to live as long as possible in the community and not in our hospitals. We lay great stress on domiciliary services to minimise the number of people who have to be admitted to psycho-geriatric wards.

Sir John Hall: Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite his guidance to area health authorities, the funds available to deal with this problem are completely inadequate? Is it not a fact that this is unlikely to be overcome until we increase our gross national product and have more money to spare?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot disagree with that. It is true that if there was more money in general we could allocate more funds for this purpose. Conservative Members are very insistent on limiting public expenditure, and we cannot exclude even the Health Service from such limitation. However, what we can do, within our limited resources, is to get our priorities right, and our principal priority must be to give help to the Cinderella services, which include those for elderly people, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. This is the policy that I am pursuing.

Elderly Persons (Mobility Allowance)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received regarding the extension of the mobility allowance to older persons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I have had a number of representations about extending the allowance to people over pensionable age. The problem is one of cost. An extra annual sum of the order of £125 million would be required to make the allowance payable beyond pensionable age. Our immediate priority for older people has been to increase the level of retirement pensions, and this has already been done four times in the past three years. Altogether, the improvements to date in pensions and benefits since we took office have cost about £1,500 million.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister, who has done so much in this House for the disabled, bear in mind that many of the disabled persons who do not get the benefits of the mobility allowance suffer from regressive illnesses and may never receive any such benefit unless the age category is extended as soon as possible? I appeal to the Minister to do his best as soon as the resources are available to extend the scheme and so enable other disabled people to enjoy these benefits.

Mr. Morris: We hope to build on the present scheme as soon as we can. No one knows more than my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that there is a strong claim on behalf of blind people to be included in the mobility allowance scheme. Unfortunately, we have an infinite number of claims but finite resources.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that there is a progressively greater need for the allowance among elderly groups? These people are worse off under the current Government proposals than they were under the previous plan. Will he extend the scheme in some way in order to help these unfortunate people?

Mr. Morris: I appreciate the problems of elderly people who are disabled. Under the terms of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we have been able to take some elderly disabled people across retirement age while retaining the benefits of the allowance. I shall bear in mind the points that have been made in this series of questions.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something rather ridiculous about the present

arrangements, which mean that a constituent of mine in his twenties who needs a tricycle to get to work—in all other respects he is self-supporting—cannot have such a vehicle, but that if he were 51 years old he could?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the transitional problems. It is because people are not entitled to a mobility allowance if they are over 50 that they may still apply for vehicles. There is an implication that his constituent is a person who needs extra help to get to and from work, and I shall have the particular case looked at in conjunction with my colleagues at the Department of Employment.

Mrs. Chalker: Is the Minister aware that the average weekly travel-to-work payment of the Department of Employment is £9·04? This is nearly double the mobility allowance. Would it not be sensible, in order to release more money for pensioners to receive the mobility allowance, to look at what further mobility allowance might be made to the disabled so that they may be made self-supporting by provision of additional help for travelling to work?

Mr. Morris: I am in very close contact with my ministerial colleagues at the Department of Employment on this matter. I emphasise that the sum is not less than its parts. Those who want to increase public expenditure in every particular item yet depress it in totality should realise that to govern is to choose. I am arguing for the claims of disabled people. I know the interests of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I am doing everything I can to help disabled people, in consultation with my colleagues.

Whooping-cough Vaccine

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage the parental take-up of whooping-cough vaccine has dropped in the last year.

Mr. Ennals: Complete figures for 1976 are not yet available, but returns from 68 of the 90 area health authorities in England suggest that the number of whooping-cough vaccinations for children under 16 was 4 per cent. lower than in


1975. A much more serious drop occurred in 1974 and 1975.

Mr. Adley: Does the Secretary of State agree that one factor in the continuing fall in take-up is the uncertainty engendered by the refusal of the Government to take liability for whooping-cough vaccine damage and to pay compensation? The United States Congress has passed into law the swine flu Act under which the American Government accept full liability for the damaging side effects of swine flu vaccination. Is he aware that a document, sent to me by Senator Edward Kennedy a few days ago, indicates that the relationship between the American Department of Health, Education and Welfare and its public is similar to that between the British Social Services Department and its public, and has similar responsibilities?

Mr. Ennals: I am prepared to read carefully any document from any distinguished friend that the hon. Member has in the United States. On the question of compensation, this is not uppermost in the minds of parents. The questions they most consider are whether to get their children vaccinated, and the risks and the advantages. However, following representations from the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children, I shall give further consideration to reaching a quick and early decision on the question of compensation. The issues are very complex and are being considered by the Royal Commission on Civil Liabilities and Personal Injury. I am not yet in a position to make a further statement.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to remind parents of the positive advantages of vaccination? One of the dangers of the present campaign, with which I sympathise, is that people have forgotten what whooping cough is really like and the damage that it can do to small children.

Mr. Ennals: I very much agree, and I deplore statements that have been made that throw doubt on the wisdom of vaccination. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation at its meeting on 29th March issued a statement saying that the continuing decline in the uptake of vaccination, in particular of whooping-cough vaccination, must be

viewed with grave concern. The committee stressed that if this trend continued it could only lead to a recurrence of serious communicable diseases, such as diphtheria and polio, on a scale that has not been seen for many years. Already there have been more cases of polio in the past six months than in any similar period in this decade. I honestly hope that young parents will be guided by this expert advice which I have at my disposal.

Dr. Vaughan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important thing here is the future of the vaccination programme as a whole? Is it correct that his committee is about to make a further report to him, and, if so, will he publish that report?

Mr. Ennals: The committee issued the statement that I have just read to the House. I have asked it to prepare a more substantial report, to review all the evidence that has been brought to its attention and to publish a report indicating the basis of its advice to me. I anticipate that this report will be available in the next few weeks.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the responsibility for the decline in the immunisation programme must rest clearly with the Government and not with the mothers asking for compensation? A week last Saturday, those parents decided that they would approach the Prime Minister and take the campaign into higher gear. However, they accepted a recommendation that they should stop campaigning for a fortnight in order to allow the Secretary of State to consult his colleagues in the hope that he will grant compensation.

Mr. Ennals: I have told the House that at the earliest possible moment I shall see whether it is possible to make a further statement about compensation. The issues are very difficult indeed, and are not just for me to decide. I think that there are two main reasons for a fall in the level of vaccinations. The first is that too many people think that these diseases have been wiped out for ever and, therefore, they need not worry. The second is that there have been so many statements which cast doubt on the wisdom of the vaccination policy, in spite of all the advice which is brought


to bear on me by my most expert advisers.

Preston Hospital

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether within the plans for Preston Hospital provision has been made for a social gynaecology unit.

Mr. Moyle: Provision for the social aspect of gynaecology is included in the general provision for that specialty in the Preston district.

Mr. Thorne: Does that mean that the Lancashire Area Health Authority is prepared to establish an abortion unit at the hospital? If not, how would my hon. Friend seek to advise it in this sphere? Secondly, will he say whether the consultations that the authority is having will include consultation with community organisations concerned with health matters?

Mr. Moyle: The Select Committee on Abortion recommended that there could be separate abortion units, to be established on an experimental basis. We are considering this as a way to solve the particular problems in different parts of the country. But it should be borne in mind that many people share the view expressed by the Lane Committee that abortion should not be separated from other gynaecological services, for reasons of safety. I certainly hope that the authority will consult community groups on its plans in my hon. Friend's part of Lancashire. My right hon. Friend and I are very anxious to promote the position of community health councils, and I hope that the consultation can be channelled through them in order to bring about the best results.

Pension Funds

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the pension funds.

Mr. Orme: In recent months I have had many meetings with those concerned with the provision of occupational pensions.

Mr. MacGregor: What has happened to the proposal to hand over half of the

positions among occupational pension fund trustees only to employees nominated by the trade unions? Will it be a casualty of the new parliamentary situation, or will the right hon. Gentleman persist with this illiberal measure with the consent of the Liberal Party, despite the strong opposition in the industry and among many employees?

Mr. Orme: I have had widespread consultation—which has included the CBI, many pensions interests and many trustees—based on the White Paper. Those consultations are continuing.

Mr. Newton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many married women will undoubtedly find it very difficult to make decisions about their own pension arrangements next May until they know what their employers will do under these schemes? Is he satisfied with progress? Does he not think that the deadline for married women's decisions should be extended?

Mr. Orme: I am aware of some of the consternation that has been caused in this area. I shall certainly have another look at the matter. I believe that the time scale is satisfactory, but I give that undertaking.

Unemployed Students

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the social security arrangements for unemployed students.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am satisfied that unemployed students will be able to claim supplementary benefit in the vacations, if their resources fall short of their requirements. As regards unemployment benefit, the Government have announced their intention of making regulations to remove the entitlement of students to unemployment benefit in the short vacations.

Mr. Arnold: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties that have been caused by the change in the supplementary benefit rules for students midway through the Easter vacation?

Mr. Deakins: I am well aware that there have been some difficulties, but they were caused by a decision of the Court


of Appeal, which reversed the long-standing operation of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. This is a temporary difficulty, which will be overcome as a result of regulations which came into effect on 1st April.

Dr. Hampson: When does the Minister intend to change the regulations affecting claims for unemployment pay in short vacations? How many mature students does he estimate have paid-up contribution records entitling them to claim? If he has not liaised with the Department of Education and Science, is there not a great risk that many mature students will now not go into higher education, as the money is an important topping-up of their living grant?

Mr. Deakins: The regulations have to go to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and then they will be made and laid before the House. We hope to bring them into operation from the start of the Christmas vacation this year. We are in close touch with the Department of Education and Science. The points that the hon. Gentleman has made will naturally emerge when the House debates the regulations in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREENWICH

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Greenwich.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I visited Greenwich on 14th January as part of my tour of docklands. I have at present no plans for a further visit.

Mr. Cartwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to return to Greenwich he would meet widespread local concern about the threat to close a number of hospitals in the borough? Does he not think it ridiculous that, at a time when his Government are trying to direct more help to inner urban areas, regional health authorities should be seeking to switch National Health Service resources away from London to aid such unlikely deprived areas as Hastings, Eastbourne and Tunbridge Wells?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the details, but I understand that there is a proposal to close the Royal Herbert

Hospital and the maternity hospital at Woolwich when the new Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital opens. I also understand that the majority of the existing staff are likely to be taken on by the new hospital and that little or no staff reductions are expected to be necessary.

Mr. Ridley: When the Prime Minister next visits the dockers in Greenwich or elsewhere, will he explain to them that the Dock Work Regulation Act, although it is not yet in force, will be coming into force because the Liberals did not make it part of the pact that it would not come into force, despite the fact that they say that there is to be no more Socialism?

The Prime Minister: I am very ready to meet the dockers in Greenwich, Cardiff—my own constituency—or elsewhere. I find them very satisfied with what is happening.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still a serious disparity between regions such as Trent and some of the London regions in the resources of the National Health Service? Will he encourage the Secretary of State for Social Services to continue the excellent policy of reinforcing those regions which most need help?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly a part of our programme and philosophy that needs should be met in the first place and that priority should be directed towards need, and I hope that we shall continue to follow that policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Corbett: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 5th April.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 5th April.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend have time during the day to have an extra meeting with the Leader of the Opposition to invite her publicly to dissociate herself from the disgracefully,


filthily racial propaganda used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Mackay) in the course of winning his seat in this House?

The Prime Minister: I well recall that after Smethwick there was a certain shame on the part of the Conservative Party at what had happened. This time there seems to be nothing but gloating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I have examined what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Mackay) said and have compared it with "The Right Approach" and the speech made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) at the last Conservative Party Conference. What the hon. Gentleman said is not in line—and Conservative Members know that it is not in line—with their declared policy, and some of them should have the courage to say so.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Prime Minister find time today to have further conversations with the foolish virgins of the Liberal Party, in view of the total confusion caused in the country by its "Wouldn't say 'Yes' and wouldn't say 'No'" attitude to current affairs?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope to have talks with any Liberal Party Member who wishes to talk with me, or, indeed, with anybody else who has something constructive to say, as Liberal Members have done recently and on so many occasions.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House is waiting to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on the question of racialism, which is important to Conservative Members and to us, and that we therefore wait with great avidity to listen to her?

Mr. Crouch: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is a pity that he could not join many of us at Mr. Speaker's service in St. Margaret's, Westminster this morning? We had hoped to see representatives of the Government, and I am sorry that he could not find time to join us at this service during Holy Week.

The Prime Minister: I recall, Mr. Speaker, that you invited me to read the lesson, but, alas, I was engaged on other matters. I do not think that who worships in what circumstances and on what

occasions is an appropriate subject for questions in the House.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In what spirit could the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow spokesman on home affairs have attended this morning's service when they have already committed themselves, through the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Mackay), to ending family unity for thousands of families in this country? Is it not sheer hypocrisy and the worst sort of political vote-catching to assert that they are going to end immigration when the commitments that we have to honour were all taken on by the Conservative Party?

The Prime Minister: I regret that this becomes a matter of party difference. Racial harmony and the treatment of ethnic minorities in this country is too important for that. However, if it is not to be a matter of party difference, the Opposition must disavow their candidates and representatives who go beyond official party policy. I think that the right hon. Lady has made clear—if she has not, I must do so—that she does not wish thousands of dependants to be deprived of the opportunity to join their families in this country. If she made that simple point, it would help a great deal.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I make it quite clear that everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Mackay) said and did during that campaign was in the interests of racial harmony? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have made perfectly clear from this Dispatch Box that this was his avowed objective in his election address and in the leaflet, and he had a number of people from the immigrant community helping in his campaign. It is disgraceful that the Prime Minister should attempt to take the rise out of a new Member in the way that he has. [Interruption.] May I, on the anniversary of the right hon. Gentleman becoming Prime Minister, remind him of his broadcast to the nation—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must allow people to express their point of view and ask questions.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I remind the Prime Minister of his broadcast a year ago today in which he said that there was


a special responsibility upon him to consult the people and to trust the people? Now that he has consulted them in Walsall, Workington and Stechford, does he trust their verdict?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not answer my simple question, which was posed in no spirit of hostility, either to her or to anything else, but merely as an endeavour to get the position clear. We should have it made clear, and I wish that she would restate Conservative policy as soon as possible at some opportunity convenient to herself. I do not instigate these Questions—[Interruption.] If the Opposition Chief Whip took note of these issues, he would realise that the right hon. Lady has specifically not replied to my invitation' that this matter should be settled quickly and simply.
As regards my first year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Last year."] It could be. The year has been a stimulating and exciting ride, but I take a simple view of these matters. The Government believe that they are pursuing the right policy to overcome inflation and to reduce unemployment, and they should stick to their guns. The CBI is attacking us for having too much control on prices, and individual trade unionists say that they want more wages. I warn the country that if both have their way there will be no escape from further inflation in the short run and from further unemployment in the medium run. I can only tell people what the consequences will be.
The country is entitled to turn us out when we have finished our term of office, but as long as we can sustain a majority in the House we shall pursue the policy that we believe to be right. At the end of the day democracy will have its say, and the electorate is entitled then to declare in whatever way it thinks right. In the meantime, I shall pursue the policy that I know to be the only policy that will get the country out of its difficulties.

Mrs. Thatcher: If the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] My job is to ask questions. If the Prime Minister is so proud of his policy, how does he explain that our major industrial competitors in Europe have done far better than we have on prices, unemployment and output in the

same world circumstances as we have had to endure?

The Prime Minister: Some countries have done better on prices, including, for example, Germany. Some have done worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] A clear example is Italy, but I shall not go through the list. Some countries have certainly done worse on unemployment. I cannot over-emphasise that, in the end, the level of industrial productivity and efficiency will determine the levels of inflation and unemployment, and the Opposition had better start telling the people the truth about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — COVENTRY

Mr. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Coventry.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are disappointed by that reply because we were hoping to compliment him on his first year as Prime Minister and to look forward to at least two more years? Will he make clear when he next comes to Coventry that the Government are fully committed to an expanding British Leyland, which includes the new Mini project, and will he and his colleagues, as a matter of urgency, get the release of the capital funds that we need, not only for the motor industry but for the industrial performance of the country generally?

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I take it that when he referred to another two years in office he meant another two years in this Parliament and a further five years afterwards. I should not want there to be any misunderstanding about that among the Opposition.
The Labour Government saved British Leyland against the votes of the Opposition and gave an opportunity for the workpeople there, at all levels, to prove that they could produce the goods. It is up to them. A review of projects is going on and I hope that, by their own efforts and work and by the absence of strikes, the workpeople will give the Government confidence to carry on with their additional subventions.

Mr. Grylls: The Prime Minister talks about democracy, but what makes him think that the answer given by the people in his humiliating by-election defeats is wrong and that he is right and that he should stay in office? Had he better not go, and go now?

The Prime Minister: The people may well be right. They often are. But at the moment, so long as we command a majority in this House, it is our responsibility to conduct affairs as we think right in the interests of the country. We shall continue to do this, and in the end the people may come to see this. I hope this is so.

HEATHROW (DISPUTE)

Mr. McCrindle: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the dispute involving maintenance engineers at Heathrow.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): About 4,000 maintenance engineers, members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, employed by British Airways at Heathrow, are taking industrial action in support of a claim—[Interruption.]

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter is of considerable interest to a number of hon. Members. We would be pleased if there were some quiet so that we can hear the statement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. This is an important issue and that is why I allowed the Question. I hope that the House will listen quietly.

Mr. Walker: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should start again and give my reply in full.
About 4,000 maintenance engineers, members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, employed by British Airways at Heathrow, are taking industrial action in support of a claim for separate negotiating arrangements and improvements in shift allowances. This action is unofficial and the engineers have been told by their union to work normally while their claim is considered within

the usual negotiating machinery. I greatly regret the inconvenience which the travelling public is suffering because of this dispute, and urge the engineers to follow the advice of their union and return to normal working.

Mr. McCrindle: Does that answer amount to the wholehearted backing by the Government of the stand taken by British Airways? If that is so, will the Government consider a tripartite call to the men on strike to return to work? By tripartite I mean the Government, British Airways and the trade union leaders. Will the Minister further confirm that, under the policy of cash limits, this nationalised industry will not be in receipt of any further money and, therefore, lost revenue may well result in the need for economy in other areas? Lastly, is there any way in which the Minister can estimate the percentage of people expecting to go on holiday with British Airways this forthcoming Easter weekend—may I declare an interest?—who are likely to be carried by other airlines through the arrangements made by British Airways?

Mr. Walker: I have been asked a number of questions. I do not think that it is helpful for the Government to be appearing to take sides in industrial disputes of this kind. The hon. Gentleman asked about a tripartite appeal. I hope that the terms of my original reply indicate that we certainly share the hopes of both British Airways and the union that the men will speedily resume normal working. This is not a strike. It is limited industrial action short of a strike. We hope that normal working will be resumed as quickly as possible. With regard to lost revenue, I am sure that those engaged in this dispute will recognise the economic effects that their action may possibly have and the consequences of it on the employment of those engaged in British Airways.

Mr. John Mendelson: It will be widely appreciated in the trade union movement that the union to which these men belong has asked them to return to work. But in view of the national importance of this dispute, however unofficial, and after we have set up important conciliatory machinery, may I ask whether it is not now necessary to start some conciliatory conversations with these men, however wrong their immediate action? We


should not merely wait for a decision to ask them not to return to work at all, which seems to be the present course of the employing authority.

Mr. Walker: The Advisory, Concilation and Arbitration Service is in touch with both British Airways and the AUEW. My hon. Friend will recognise the difficulty because this is an unofficial dispute. Certainly ACAS is ready to make its services available if British Airways and the AUEW ask it to intervene. It might be interesting to my hon. Friend and the House if I tell them that the AUEW national executive discussed this dispute this morning at the executive council meeting and decided to instruct those engaged in the industrial action to resume normal working. I understand that a mass meeting is being arranged for tomorrow. It will be addressed by a member of the national executive of the union, who will put the union's instruction to the mass meeting. I hope that the men will respond to this call and that they will resume normal working. In the meantime, it would be rather unwise for me, and perhaps the House, to say anything which might put the outcome in jeopardy.

Mr. Adley: Does the Minister not think that this dispute, following the recent British Leyland toolmakers' dispute, indicates that the present make-up of these large unions, representing very diverse skills, may not be in the overall interests of good industrial relations and the British economy? Is it not now time to consider some form of inquiry with the unions themselves into plant bargaining or a trade union system more akin to the system which the British helped West Germany to institute after the war?

Mr. Walker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that on reflection he will realise that there is a contradiction in his point. We do see the advantages—I think it is common ground between both sides of the House—of reducing the number of unions. We do see the advantages of the relatively small number of unions in Western Germany. But to do as the hon. Gentleman has suggested and for the unions to go along the road to break-up would be counter to what he has suggested. There are common features between this dispute and the

British Leyland situation. If the present bargaining arrangements are unsatisfactory to particular groups, it is for the parties to those arrangements to resolve this. I hope that any anxiety on the part of particular groups which feel that these bargaining arrangements are unsatisfactory will be pursued through the constitutional channels.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the three hon. Members who have been on their feet and no one else.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Minister say whether the British Airways' ultimatum to the men—to resume normal working or be dismissed and suffer the consequence that if they are re-engaged it will be as new entrants—has his support?

Mr. Walker: The ultimatum was probably made before the news was available of the proposed mass meeting tomorrow. I hope that British Airways will now take into account the fact that the executive council of the union has made a firm, clear decision and has issued an instruction to the men. There will be a mass meeting tomorrow and I hope that there will not be any precipitate action which will inflame the position rather than help it.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the size or complexity of the trade union that matters but, very often, the way the Government handle a situation like this? Conservative Members should not exacerbate the situation. The miners' dispute was exacerbated most of all by Conservative Members, particularly the Leader of the party, in 1973.

Mr. Walker: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said, particularly his point about the importance of this House recognising the difficulties for those who have to handle this situation and those who may subsequently have to pick up the pieces. We in this House should not be responsible for imprudent and unwise statements.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Do the Government not recognise that the mood of the nation has changed and that it really has become essential that there should be


active Government support against any unofficial action of this nature? Are not the Government ready in this case to ensure that the dispute shall be referrable to ACAS so that it can intervene and come forward with a report? Do the Government not also recognise that in this, and other disputes, it will be necessary to have some form of deterrent against people who cause grave industrial damage to the nation which they fully represent?

Mr. Walker: I repeat what I said earlier—that of course the services of ACAS are available if requested by British Airways and by the AUEW, the union involved. We urge the engineers to follow the union's advice and to return to normal working as quickly as possible.
With regard to the final part of the question, the deterrent concept has been tried, and it failed, with disastrous consequences. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends will learn from their bitter experience and our bitter experience of the 1970s.

Mr. Speaker: I was not referring to the Front Bench when I made my earlier statement. Mr. James Prior.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we fully support his statement that there should be an immediate return to work? Is he further aware that although in certain circumstances one might have a great deal of sympathy for the cause of the engineers, that sympathy is completely negatived by the action they have taken at this particular time and that we believe that the union is perfectly right to ask the men to return to work? The Government and the House would wish to see an early return to work. That is the only way in which a settlement of what otherwise could become a very costly and inconvenient dispute can come about.

Mr. Walker: I do not think I should want to challenge anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I welcome his approach on this issue.

NEW TOWNS PROGRAMME (REAPPRAISAL)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the English new towns.
The House will know that I have been much engaged with two important and in certain respects inter-related aspects of planning policy—the future of the new towns and the future of the inner cities. I hope to make a statement on inner cities tomorrow, and wish now to inform the House of the conclusions I have reached so far in my reappraisal of the new towns programme.
This reappraisal—the first comprehensive reappraisal since the mid-1960s—has taken particular account of the substantial changes in national and regional population trends, of changes in our economic and industrial position, of changed conditions in our major cities and of changed attitudes of the conurbation authorities towards population movement, and of the new balance that we are seeking to achieve between development within the cities and development outside.
I begin with the earlier new towns, most of which have now largely and successfully fulfilled the purposes for which they were established, and here I have no major changes to announce. I have decided against any extension of the designated areas of Bracknell and Skelmersdale and I find no grounds for initiatives to be taken for the expansion of Redditch. No change is proposed in the population targets of Basildon, Corby and Runcorn.
In the cases of Harlow and Stevenage, public inquiries into proposals for extension of the designated areas were held last year. I have decided not to make extension orders for either town. The normal growth of the towns, especially for second generation families, will be matters for the local authorities concerned to deal with under other legislation. Decision letters giving my reasons have been sent to the interested parties today, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
It is my intention that, subject to the necessary consultations, the development corporations in these eight new towns will be wound up within the next five


years. Discussions will be started with the local authorities on the arrangements needed for the continued normal growth of these towns, for the housing needs of people who were born in them, and for the requirements of industry.
The three new towns in the North-East—Ayciffe, Peterlee and Washington—have greatly helped to stimulate industrial growth in that region. I am not contemplating any fundamental changes in their programmes, but I am still considering the contribution which these towns can make to the economy of the North-East. I shall make a further statement after Easter.
I now turn to the six third generation new towns which, as the House will recall, were launched in the mid-1960s. Here the factors I listed at the beginning of my statement have particular relevance. Population forecasts have changed radically. Whereas it was then expected that the population of England and Wales would rise to 60 million by 1990, recent trends strongly suggest that the population will reach only 51 million by that date. On the other hand, the number of potential households will continue to increase for some time ahead.
I have also to consider how best to balance the industrial and employment needs of the inner areas with the need for new industrial growth points. Last but not least, I must also take account of the infrastructure already provided in these new towns and the extent and pattern of their development, and the need to allow them to develop into balanced and viable communities. The third generation new towns are, like their predecessors, one of the outstanding successes of post-war Britain, and nothing I am doing should reduce their ability to continue building on the foundations already laid.
I have myself recently visited most of the third generation new towns. My broad conclusion is that there must be a substantial reduction in the target figures set 10 years ago for the growth of these new towns. Given the factors I have referred to, I believe it is necessary over the next seven or eight years substantially to maintain the momentum of their development—even in the changed circumstances of the conurbations. But we must do more to help the inner areas by

taking a higher proportion of disadvantaged people, and we must also do more to meet the growing demand for owner-occupation. I now intend to enter into detailed consultations with the development corporations and the local authorities concerned, including the exporting authorities, about revisions of their population targets. I shall do so on the basis of the following preliminary conclusions.
In the South-East, as the recent Review of the Strategy and the report of the Lambeth inner area study have both indicated, the still pressing housing needs of London require some help from outside the conurbation. Planned provision must therefore still be made for this.
In Milton Keynes my proposal is that the development corporation should induce growth until the population reaches 150,000 in the mid-1980s. With natural growth, this should mean a population upwards of 180,000 by the late 1980s, with the possibility of continued growth thereafter to 200,000. The original target was 250,000.
In Northampton I propose that the development corporation should provide induced growth up to 173,000 by 1982, which, with natural growth, should mean a population of around 180,000 by 1990. The original target was 230,000.
At Peterborough my proposal is for further induced growth up to 150,000, which, with natural growth, should result in a population of around 160,000 by the mid-1980s. The original target was 180,000.
In the West Midlands, the total overspill needs of the conurbation, though still substantial, are declining, and the conurbation local authorities are increasingly reluctant to lose employment opportunities in, or close to, their areas. Two years ago a reduced interim target for Telford was published in place of the original long-term target of 220,000. My proposal is that induced growth should continue until 1986, when the population may be expected to reach 130,000 to 135,000. Natural growth should result in a population of about 150,000 by about 1990.
In the North-West my examination has been much influenced by the local authorities' latest views of their housing needs and by the importance of balancing the


industrial requirements of other places in the region with the growth of these two new towns, Warrington and Central Lancashire. Because of these considerations it now seems unlikely that the new towns will provide homes for more than about 50,000 people.
For Warrington, induced growth should continue until the population reaches 160,000, which, together with natural growth, should mean a population of about 170,000 by the late 1980s in place of the previous target of 205,000.
In the case of Central Lancashire New Town I have today issued my decision approving the development corporation's outline plan in a modified form to provide for a population intake of 23,000, compared with the intake of well over 100,000 previously proposed. I shall consult the relevant local authorities and the development corporation about its future beyond that. Copies of the decision letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
In total, I am proposing a reduction of some 380,000 in the programmes of the third generation new towns, but the revised programmes that I have suggested today should provide adequate scope for their future development. Our plans must be capable of being adapted to meet the as yet unforeseen circumstances of the next decade. The new towns have proved themselves to be adaptable in responding to changing requirements and I am sure that they will respond positively to this new situation. I hope that the consultations that will now follow will be conducted expeditiously so as to enable me to report to the House my final decisions by the summer, and thus establish a sound basis for the final stage of our new towns programme.

Mr. Rossi: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the fact that he has at long last produced a statement on the future of the new towns? Will he initiate a debate on the statement, which, in many respects, resembles a White Paper, both in length and in the wide range of issues that it covers? We agree that each new town requires separate consideration and treatment, and to that extent we welcome his general approach. However, will he accept that we have considerable reservations about much of the detail that he has announced?
Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the new towns that are to be required to take a higher proportion of disadvantaged people from inner cities are to be given additional resources, through social services, in order to meet the additional responsibilities that are to be thrust upon them? With his acknowledgement of the growing demand for owner-occupation, will he give complete freedom to the development corporations to sell their houses to their tenants? Will he give an estimate of the savings in resources earmarked for the new towns arising from the reduction in population targets for the third generation new towns?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say how much less agricultural land will be taken up as a result of these changes? Will he justify to the House his decision to retain the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation when he has reduced the population target from over 100,000 to 23,000? Will he not reconsider his decision to keep that corporation in existence? Will he also accept that we are disappointed that he has shown no receptiveness to the new thinking concerning disposal of commercial and industrial assets to pension and investment funds in order to release much-needed capital for investment in the older urban areas?

Mr. Shore: I shall be only too pleased if we can arrange a debate on this admittedly lengthy statement.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed points. I believe that it will be helpful to the House if opportunity is taken to examine my decision in relation to Central Lancashire so that hon. Members can see the main arguments that I had presented to me and by which I have been persuaded that it is right to go ahead with the Central Lancashire New Town, although on a very much reduced scale.
I can only give one firm answer to the hon. Gentleman on the question of the saving of money. We reckon that there will be a saving of about £20 million a year by 1979–80, and, of course, other savings will accrue. But I would rather not be more definite about that, or about the question of agricultural land, until I have had the consultations


to which I have referred and upon which I am about to embark.
I have nothing to add to the statement on owner-occupation made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was Minister for Planning and Local Government, only a few months ago, when he discribed the position relating to the new regulations affecting the sale of houses in the new towns.
Finally, I hope that the new towns concerned will be able to do more for disadvantaged people. I believe that it will be a matter for the social service authorities in the areas concerned to make the necesary dispositions in order to help the increased numbers of disadvantaged people. In so far as that factor has to be taken into account in the rate support grant, of course it will be.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: The House can see how many right hon. and hon. Members wish to catch my eye. I shall do my best to see that those with constituency interests are called, so hon. Members may contain themselves in that knowledge. It will be of great help if right hon. and hon. Members, instead of asking a series of questions, will concentrate on the one issue that concerns them in their constituencies.

Mr. Corbett: In his review of the resources to be devoted to the new towns will my right hon. Friend undertake to hold consultations with the Commission for the New Towns in respect of the second generation new towns to see what express provision they can make to meet the increasing demands by parents and often widows of newtowners who have been left stranded in inner city areas while their families are tucked away in the new towns?

Mr. Shore: I am sympathetic to the need for accommodating second generation people in new towns and, indeed, as far as possible making it possible for family units to be brought together. But once there is no longer a need for a town to have special new town status, it is for the council concerned to make the necessary provision, as all other councils have

to do, to secure the housing and other developments necessary.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his decision not to make extension orders for Stevenage and Harlow will be widely welcomed by enlightened opinion both amongst the local authorities and the generality of the population in Hertfordshire? Does he agree that any necessary residual action can well be left to the efficient performance of the local authorities concerned?

Mr. Shore: I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but it is not for me now to speculate on the reactions to my statement in different parts of the country affected by it. I believe that the initiative, as it were, for securing any necessary extensions that there may be in respect of these two new towns and of others must now be taken by the district councils concerned.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision not to expand Harlow and Stevenage fails to take into account that there is not sufficient building land available to meet the needs of the existing second generation? Is he aware that in the 1980s there will be 700 to 800 new applicants a year, but in the case of Harlow all building land resources will be exhausted in 1980? Is he further aware that, unless something is done to change this state of affairs, it will be regarded as a betrayal of the families who went out to the new towns of Stevenage and Harlow in the hope of getting a new life? What does he propose to do to give these people and those in the surrounding areas who need housing an opportunity to get it?

Mr. Shore: I understand very well the problems to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, particularly in the case of Harlow, where, it is true, the amount of land available—and therefore the possibility of new building—is now running out. A problem undoubtedly exists there. But it must not be inferred from my decision that I necessarily accept the financial and other factors set out in the inspector's report, or the conclusions that he draws from them. I feel that there may well be need for more houses to be built to meet the needs of Harlow, but I emphasise that application, and provision following such application, must


now lie at the initiative of the district council.

Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his statement but that we shall want to see the inner cities getting some of the positive stimulus that the corporations gave to new towns? We welcome his caution in the case of the North-East, as the three new towns there have played an integral part in the industrial strategy of the area.

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the North-East. I hope to make another announcement about my consideration of those three new towns shortly. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the inner cities, but I think it right for me to hold my fire about the inner cities until tomorrow.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in their decision on the Central Lancashire New Town the Government are deliberately breaking their promise to half a million people in North-East Lancashire? Three senior Cabinet Ministers—Tory as well as Labour—have repeated the promise made to these people. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Central Lancashire New Town goes forward without that promise being implemented for the people in North-East Lancashire, he will be striking a paralysing blow at that area? I serve warning on the Government that I shall stump through North-East Lancashire to see that this picture is drawn to the attention of the people there. The Government have sown some sour seeds.

Mr. Shore: I would not willingly or consciously have broken a promise made to the people in Central and North-East Lancashire, and I shall look carefully at the points made by my hon. Friend, who has very strong concern for the area.

Sir David Renton: The target for Peterborough, which falls partly within my constituency, is being only marginally reduced. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the defects caused by the lack of funds for education and hospital development and by the lack of rate support grant for Cambridgeshire, in which Peterborough lies? As Peterborough is to continue largely on the scale originally planned, will he ensure that these defects are overcome as soon as may be?

Mr. Shore: Ministers directly concerned with the particular services will clearly take account of the planned growth of each individual new town, including Peterborough. I need say no more than that, except to remind the right hon. and learned Member that I have had the opportunity of hearing him and representatives from Cambridge County Council on the matter of the rate support grant. I have noted and I shall study carefully what they have said.

Ms. Colquhoun: Why is my right hon. Friend so certain that the planners are right in stopping the new towns when, having achieved the dereliction of the inner cities, they now seek to achieve the dereliction of the new towns? Will my right hon. Friend say why a few of the planners cannot be got rid of? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Northampton a binding agreement with the development corporation has been entered into by the borough council—which this decision will break and which will mean dereliction of our city shopping centre? What kind of compensation is the Secretary of State prepared to discuss with the borough council?

Mr. Shore: I can agree with at least the first part of what my hon. Friend said. I heartily endorse the view that planners are not always right, and that is something that we must bear in mind. To build in a certain element for the change in planning decisions is only sensible. I am not at all persuaded that such dire consequences as my hon. Friend predicts will follow from my announcement. In any event, we shall have an opportunity of consulting the local authority as well as the new town corporation during the period ahead.

Mr. Benyon: As it appears that no change has been made for designated areas of third generation new towns, is it fair to assume that in a growth point such as Milton Keynes there is no reason why that town should not reach its target population of 250,000?

Mr. Shore: I do not wish to add to the figures that I have already announced. They represent a careful and considered preliminary judgment of the development of that new town.

Mr. Thorne: Does the Secretary of State's approval of the Central Lancashire


New Town outline plan also express acceptance of the road works contained in that plan? May we be assured that the decision letter is available in the Library so that we can check up on that?

Mr. Shore: It is indeed my belief and hope that that document is in the Library now.
It would be wrong for me to go into too many details about individual internal arrangements and facilities for each of the new towns, but obviously road planning—given a change in the whole size of the proposals for the Central Lancashire New Town—is bound to be affected. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision drastically to reduce the size of the Central Lancashire New Town provides the chance of an end to the long feud between those who want an enormous monstrosity and those who, like myself, do not want it at all?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider looking again at the size of the bureaucracy that will remain to govern this much reduced new town? It is expensive, and if it is to remain the same size many of the savings that the Secretary of State seeks will be frittered away.

Mr. Shore: I am not aware that new towns have been accused in the past of having swollen bureaucracies. The general feeling is that they have been extremely efficient, but certainly a new town organisation must reflect the task that it has been given, and no doubt that point will be noted. I am glad to hear that what I have said will bring greater contentment in that area, but a major factor—particularly in the North-West—is that the population growth there has been about the smallest of possibly all the regions in England. That is bound to affect a decision that was taken 10 years ago against a different background.

Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give unlimited relief to the 2¼ million people who have moved into new towns? While the Minister has rightly resisted the idea that has recently been expressed by the Opposition that we should kill the new towns, will not my right hon. Friend's action in trimming new towns means that

the delicate balance between houses and jobs could be affected? Is there nothing that the Secretary of State wants to say to the House about the transfer of assets?

Mr. Shore: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is no wish or intention of mine to kill the new towns. They have been highly successful and have given much happiness to the hundreds of thousands of people who are fortunate enough to live in them. As for the New Towns Commission, I was afraid that I might over-weary the House with the length of my statement so I have decided to make a further statement on that later.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is the Secretary of State aware that most of my constituents will warmly welcome his decision to reduce substantially the target population figure for the Central Lancashire New Town? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the two villages of Grimsargh and Haighton and the rich agricultural land around them will be excluded from new town development? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Penwortham the new town is one of the most unpopular developments ever to be imposed on an unwilling community, and will he take steps to see that in reducing the target population he will halt the development of the Central Lancashire New Town in Penwortham?

Mr. Shore: I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the decision later rather than to ask me to attempt to comment on details. I shall be consulting with the new town development corporation and with the local authorities concerned, and I am quite sure that I shall be able to take fully into account particular and local matters of importance of the kind that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made clear.

Mr. Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just come back to the Chamber from the Library and the decision letter to which the Secretary of State referred is not available.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will see to that, but it is not for me to do so.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My right hon. Friend is chary about basing his views on predictions of the future population because that is liable to be unpredictable. Will


the Secretary of State for Scotland make a statement about the Scottish new towns, and particularly about the mature new towns such as East Kilbride?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will be reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I take this opportunity of apologising to the House for the fact that we have not yet put in the Library the document that I wished to place there. We shall do our utmost to remedy that without delay.
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that I cannot wholly and emphatically prejudge the future population of this country.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In relation to Bracknell New Town the Minister has said, as I understand it, that he will open discussions with the local authority about "normal growth", but does he expect that any part of that normal growth might take place outside the designated areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying, in relation to inner cities, that he hoped to entice back some of the industry that has moved to the new towns? Can the Secretary of State assure us that he does not propose to take any action that would dismember living and lively new towns such as Bracknell?

Mr. Shore: I have no intention of injuring the town of Bracknell. As for its possibilities of expansion through the district council, I remind the hon. Gentleman that of course there is in the territory of Bracknell considerable land some of which, at any rate, might be available for development if the town wished to build more.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the situation can arise in which his Department, having fixed a 1986 target for Telford only just over 18 months ago, can today announce a reduction of some two-fifths of the difference between the present population and that target? Will he comment on what that tells us about the efficacy of the planning procedures of his Department?

Mr. Shore: There are bound to be estimates about the pace at which towns expand and at which people leave other areas of the conurbations. We are not

a command society in which we say that there will be a build-up of X per cent. or of X thousand people a year. We are not driving people from one part of the country to another. There are therefore bound to be differences between estimates and outturn. Frankly, I do not find the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend refers a very great one.

Mr. Carlisle: My constituency covers the designated areas of two new towns, and I have two questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The first concerns Runcorn. I accept his decision that it should be allowed to complete its proposed development, but does he intend that new towns should do more to meet the growing demand for owner-occupation? Will he therefore now remove those fetters that prevent the development corporation from selling houses in Runcorn to tenants when it wishes to do so?
My second question concerns Warrington, and here the right hon. Gentleman's statement is inadequate. If it is intended that the population should be reduced by 35,000, does that mean that the Secretary of State proposes to redefine the designated area, thus reducing it, and to remove from that area those parts of my constituency which at present are in it and which never should have been in it from the beginning?

Mr. Shore: It would be premature for me to speak about changes in the designated areas. I have explained that I am simply launching a consultation, and I must proceed with it before I make any firm announcements.
As for owner-occupation, I believe that the announcement by my right hon. Friend some months ago, tailoring the different degrees of permissiveness to the actual situation in each new town to the number of people actually wanting rented accommodation, was a very sensible and wise decision. I shall look at the matter again, but I am pretty certain that that decision can stand for some time.

Mr. Hal Miller: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the growing demand for owner-occupation and to the changes in population movements. In the case of Redditch, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the development


corporation will be allowed to cater for that demand? I think that he referred to third generation towns in that context. Will he say that there is now no longer any justification for Birmingham representation on the development corporation board? Is he now in a position to make the appointments which have been outstanding for so long.

Mr. Shore: I hope to make announcements about appointments in the very near future. My remarks on owner-occupation were addressed principally to the third generation new towns. Beyond that I need not add to the statement I made in reply to the two previous questions on the present regime in first and second generation new towns affecting sales to owner-occupiers.

Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be broadly welcomed by the citizens of Peterborough as being much less painful than they expected it to be? Will he say whether any individual township will be discontinued because of his proposals? When will he be able to give us a decision on the western sector outline plan?

Mr. Shore: I certainly would not propose to take any decision on the western sector until I had had my consultations with the Peterborough authorities. It would be wrong to assume that the development of particular districts or areas is either made necessary or ruled out by my statement.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the four hon. Members who have risen to their feet. I say without offence to those who have already been called that I often keep the best until last.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question? In his statement he said that the new towns were to take a higher proportion of disadvantaged persons. Will he give an assurance that the relevant area health authorities will be given sufficient funds to meet the health needs of these disadvantaged people?

Mr. Shore: If there were significant increases after my statement in such numbers I should take the matter up with

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his recognition of the contribution made by the new towns in the North-East to the provision of jobs and to the raising of environmental standards is widely welcomed? Will he accept, however, that an early statement on their future is necessary?

Mr. Shore: I recognise the desirability of an early statement on that matter. I am only sorry that I have been unable to bring matters forward in order to make it today.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling and opinion that the problems of the new towns and inner cities are separate issues that should be treated separately? Is he aware that the Central Lancashire New Town is a focal point for growth in the North-West Region, a region which has been stricken by unemployment? Will he ensure that there are immediate consultations with the local authorities and the development corporation and that a time limit is set for these consultations so that the issue may be completely clarified?

Mr. Shore: Yes, I have in mind that these consultations should be thorough but, nevertheless, reasonably speedy. I hope that I shall be able to report to the House before the Summer Recess. I acknowledge that part of the case for the Central Lancashire New Town is that it is well placed geographically and that it is well placed for growth.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even without the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation there would be considerable development of housing in the new town area but that it would be chiefly of a private nature and would be intended for owner-occupation? Is he aware that there is, nevertheless, an enormous demand for rented accommodation? Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to instruct the new town to use some of its resources, especially that part which will not be wasted on roads, in putting funds into the town centre so that houses may be built for rent?

Mr. Shore: I do not like the word "instruct", but I am certain that there


is plenty of scope, particularly against the background of the individual needs of the people in the area concerned, for modifications of the housing tenures or of the kind of houses built by the development corporation.

Mr. Moonman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be obvious to you that the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment has raised as many questions as it has answered. Since my right hon. Friend the Lord President is present in the Chamber and since there is no chance of dealing with this matter on the Business Question this week, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House take the opportunity of indicating when we might have a debate on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: If the Leader of the House had the chance, maybe he would take that opportunity, but it does not seem as though he wants that chance.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put,
That Commission Document No. R/103/77 relating to Advisory Committees on Dentists and Senior Public Health Officials be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. BATES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That Commission Document No. R/103/77 relating to Advisory Committees on Dentists and Senior Public Health Officials be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I inquire, while the Lord President is here, and since there seems to be some doubt about the matter, whether the proposed debate on Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball will take place tonight? Can you assist us, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Newens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that

notice of appeal to the House of Lords has been given today, and in that case I take it that there is unlikely to be any debate because the matter would be sub judice. Can it be confirmed whether that is the situation and whether it will apply equally to both Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball? While on that point of order, I also ask whether, when the debate eventually takes place, we can try to clear the situation because it is very confusing when people do not know what the situation is and when debates are continually cancelled at short notice.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of the appeal that has been made, the debate will not take place tonight. It would obviously be hopeless to proceed with the debate in this situation. We proposed the debate in response to requests from many of my hon. Friends, and if we had not done so we might have been laid open to the charge that we were not seeking an opportunity for debate.
I give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that of course we shall seek to arrange a debate, as we have promised, at a time that is convenient to the House. I shall do my best to notify hon. Members who have shown a special interest in the matter, to give them some indication beforehand.

NEW TOWNS PROGRAMME (REAPPRAISAL)

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of new towns".
The matter is specific in that there are a number of designated new towns with a total population of more than 2 million people. The matter is important because this is the first major review that there has been for over 15 years, and the statement that we heard today puts the viability of a number of new towns into question.
The matter is urgent because, for months on end, every hon. Member who represents a new town has had a cloud


hanging over him while awaiting this statement. We were given to understand that the statement would be made after Easter, but it has been made before Easter.
We have no opportunity to apply for a normal Adjournment debate and no opportunity to press the Lord President on this matter in business questions. It is for those reasons that I apply for this emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss a matter that is specific and important, namely,
the future of new towns".
I have listened very carefully to the exchanges this afternoon and also to what the hon. Member for Northampton, South said in making his application. However, I fear that I cannot grant his application.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (HOUSEHOLDERS' ALLOWANCES)

4.27 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the payment of an identifiable householders' allowance as a separate benefit under the National Insurance Scheme; to permit such an allowance to be varied to take account of housing costs; and for related purposes.
The special needs of householders should be and are of special concern to the House. Within the national insurance system there is, in fact, already provision for householders, but it is concealed in the way in which the figures are published and it does not seem to be calculated on any rational basis. We can deduce what it is only from the figures.
I shall try to be as brief as I can, and I hope that the following figures will not be totally incomprehensible to the House. For pensioners, the published rates show that the current benefit for a single man is £15·30, but for a couple the figure is not twice as much as that. Having a dependant increases the single person's entitlement by only £9·20, making a total of £24·50.
It would be perfectly possible to publish these figures of entitlement to show the personal allowances both for the pensioner and his wife as £9·20 each, and to put the householder's allowance of £6·10 as an additional benefit. That would make the figures come to the same total but would draw attention to the fact that there is this concealed householder's provision in the National Insurance Scheme.
I believe that it is fruitful to make these examinations because we find that not all categories of beneficiary under the National Insurance Scheme are entitled to the same. The differences should attract attention. If for example we examine the entitlements of the long-term unemployed on exactly the same basis, we find that they are entitled to £8·00 for each individual person in the household, but their householder's allowance is only £4·90.
Why is a pensioner's household allowance £6·10 under the National Insurance Scheme while that for long-term unemployed is only £4·90? There may be


a good reason, but I have never heard it explained to the House. Were I to go through the whole list of benefits, I could draw attention to other seeming anomalies as well. The amounts of money involved in total are so large, and so many people are dependent on national insurance benefits that we should ask whether this household provision is appropriate. And is it enough? The Department of the Environment in recent weeks published a consultative document about housing problems which, it was generally felt, was preparing the public for rises in the general level of rents. The House is probably aware that rents have been left behind by inflation and that something needs to be done. But we are all equally aware that there are many people in this country who cannot, or who can barely, meet their rents already. So if we are moving into an area of generally higher rent levels, the House must pay special attention to the problem of householders who are in difficulties.
This problem cannot be solved by a blanket benefit. We need to help householders differentially. The cost of living index is not an adequate guide to what is likely to happen to household costs. Blanket increases leave many social needs unsolved. We must also reflect on the regional differences in housing costs, which are acute.
That this fact is already recognised by the authorities is shown in the way in which the Housing Finance Act has been interpreted. I understand that the maximum limit for a household allowance or a personal rent allowance under that Act is generally £8 but that in Inner London it has been more than doubled, to £17.
The object of social policy should be to give help where it is needed to the best effect with the resources available. The help which we are giving householders is not achieving that object. For instance, pensioners who are not householders because they live with relatives are much less in need than pensioners on their own, particularly in the inner city areas.
We need also to protect the self-respect of the recipients. If we are moving forward to generally higher rents, we shall wash hundreds of thousands more people into supplementary benefit, because that

is the only way in which they will be able to meet the higher rents under the present system.
I have often drawn attention to the fact that there are three roots of entitlement to welfare benefits—need, record of contributions and citizenship. Contributions and citizenship are satisfactory to the recipient, but need is the least acceptable root of entitlement and we should minimise the number of people who have to plead need as an excuse for obtaining public resources to help them to a minimum income.
Need is an unsatisfactory criterion because of the continuous case work involved—and also because of the natural reluctance of those entitled to benefit to apply for it, which still shows up in the relatively low take-up of the need-based benefits, as against those based on citizenship or on record of contributions. There are also the endless disagreeable inquisitions, particularly in the area of cohabitation.
My recomendation would largely solve the problems which arise over the determination of entitlement in cases of cohabitation. Because the household element would be separate and identifiable and couples living together would obviously be entitled to only one household allowance, whether they were married or were single people living together.
The Chancellor lost a chance to introduce a special tax allowance for householders in this year's Budget—that is to say, in the negative Welfare State. But it is also appropriate to pay special attention to the needs of householders in the positive Welfare State, of which the National Insurance Scheme is the obvious example.
My Bill would cost nothing in the first instance, but if it were enacted or put into effect by the Department, which would be possible without an Act, it would bring the whole problem of householders' costs to the attention of the public and of the House, which is the best hope of progress. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. John Cope.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (HOUSEHOLDERS' ALLOWANCES)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to require the payment of an identifiable householders' allowance as a separate benefit under the National Insurance Scheme; to permit such an allowance to be varied to take account of housing costs; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22nd April and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11 TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This will now unfortunately be a very short debate and will have to finish at 7 o'clock. If there were some facility for it, I would apply for injury time, but as many hon. Members want to speak, I shall try to be brief.
The subject of this debate is Scottish teacher training colleges and the threat to four of them and to Scottish education as a whole presented by the Secretary of State's proposals in the consultative document entitled "Teacher Training from 1977 Onwards". The Secretary of State has said that the conclusions on that document will be announced shortly and the object of this debate is to give the House an opportunity to hear the arguments and to express a view. We hope that the House will make it clear that the proposals in the consultative document are utterly unacceptable and that the Secretary of State should produce new proposals.
In 12 years in the House of Commons I have known no document so universally condemned and no proposals advanced in so ham-handed and insensitive a manner. The proposals are simply a cold, statistical exercise in economic butchery; the 25 pages contain no education or economic justification.
The proposals have been condemned by every section of educational and public opinion. They have been clearly condemned by the colleges themselves, individually and collectively. They have been condemned clearly by the university lecturers through their association. Their chairman, Mr. John Maxton, has said that the document was based entirely on figures, and added:
The Department has displayed an uncanny ability to produce inaccurate predictions, estimates and planning policies.


In a pamphlet circulated to all Scottish Members today, the association says:
We believe that the Secretary of State has produced a very bad document—one which is based on questionable assumptions, simplistic economics and faulty logic.
There is no doubt that the lecturers themselves are very angry not only at the proposals but at the way in which they have been treated by the Secretary of State. For example, I know that 200 lecturers were very bitter when they gathered on a very cold day outside St. Andrew's House for two hours to make their representations, only to discover that the Secretary of State had slipped out the back door.
We also know that the General Teaching Council, the only statutory body trying to advise on teacher training, was not consulted before the proposals were brought forward and has made it clear that it also condemns them. It has said:
There is no educational justification for the proposals.
Even the local authorities are united in condemning the proposals. COSLA considered them carefully and said:
No decision on closures should be taken until alternative strategies have been fully considered in depth.
So it has made its position clear.
We also had a lengthy two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. Anyone who was present would have seen that hon. Members as a whole were opposed to the proposals. The vote was 39 to 25 against the Government. The majority of Scottish Members, including two Labour Members who had the courage to vote against the proposals, some who abstained and others who simply stayed away, made it clear that the proposals were unacceptable to them. Once again, we had the full support of the Scottish National Party and, I am glad to say, on that occasion the support of the Scottish Liberals.
In addition, the matter was further considered at the Scottish Labour Party Conference. I have never been to a Scottish Labour Party Conference, but I am told that they are tempestuous gatherings, because the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) plays a great part in them, that they are rather irresponsible, and that the delegates rarely agree. I understand that the only occa-

sion in that long conference when there was complete unanimity was when delegates were condemning the Secretary of State's proposal.
We are all aware that the Churches are opposed to the proposals. The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, is bitterly opposed to the proposals on Craiglockhart College, because it is concerned about the implications of the closure for the East of Scotland.
We also know that the teacher's unions are opposed to the proposals. The EIS, the principal teachers' union, in a document published shortly after the consultative document was published, said:
The Paper takes no account of educational or social considerations nor even recognises that such considerations exist.
The union has made it clear that it objects to the proposals and thinks that they are wrong. There is no doubt that these proposals have been universally condemned. There may be one or two people who support them but, if there are, they have remained strangely silent.
One rather strange feature of the whole debate is the fact that there may be some doubt whether the Secretary of State is even supported by his own ministerial team. We know that one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), led a deputation to his right hon. Friend about Callendar Park College and he is quoted as saying that Callendar Park would not be used as a sacrificial lamb. We know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) is not one whom we can accuse of lack of enthusiasm. He is always very enthusiastic and only a short while after he took on the job of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland he submitted a long document to explain what a good job he was doing. We know that on this matter the hon. Gentleman has not shown his usual enthusiasm. The speeches he has made on the subject have been a series of rather self-conscious and feeble filibusters.
We find that even the Government's Scottish Whip, whom we all respect, has been reported in the Press this weekend as passing on a petition from his constituents against the policy document. That leaves only the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), who is adopting his


usual low profile. He certainly has not been jumping to the defence of the proposals. I am sorry, I have missed out the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who has been silent as usual. He has not been standing up in Rutherglen or storming the barricades to explain the merits of his right hon. Friend's proposals.
In these circumstances it is quite clear that these proposals do not have a friend in Scottish education or in the House of Commons. For that reason, if for none other, I think that the Secretary of State should think again.
We also object to the fact that the consultations have been rather inadequate. We do not say for one moment that there have been no consultations. There have been limited consultations in which the Under-Secretary has sometimes listened and often talked a great deal, but the fact is that these consultations have been based on totally inadequate information.
If we are to consider whether the Government's proposals are good or bad, we want to know what the figures are, what the costings are, what will be saved, what are the alternative proposals, and what would happen if another formula were put forward. We have pressed repeatedly for figures and we do not have them. We do not have the cost of alternatives.
We even had the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) pressing the Government for information which the English Education Department has given time and again about shortages of teachers in certain subjects. We do not have the information telling us how short we are of teachers of mathematics or science.
Dunfermline College is one of the colleges which will be merged and effectively taken out of a separate existence as a result of this move. It has been asking for information which in the past it has readily received. In the document which it sent it said:
During this period officials of the Scottish Education Department had no difficulty in giving projections of the number of physical education teachers required and the Governing Body regret that this year all our efforts to require such precise information have failed and only global projections are available.

This is one of the colleges which are threatened. It has been trying to get information which it has always been able to obtain in the past.
We also wanted information about the Government's thoughts on residential accommodation. We have the astonishing proposal in the consultative paper that there is to be effectively the closure of Dunfermline and Craiglockhart, which together have over 586 residential places. They are apparently to be merged with Dundee, which has a total of 190 places. How will this work? We have not had this information. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to have consultations and meetings, but if the information on which we can consult and consider alternatives is not available, that consultation is a pretty hollow sham.
I make it clear that we accept that there must be a reduction, probably quite a substantial reduction, in the student intake into colleges. The question is whether the figures are right and whether the Governments' proposal in the consultative document has any merit.
As for the figures, we must make it clear that the Government are putting forward proposals based not on population estimates of children whom we know exist but on projections of children who may or may not be born. There have been wide variations in these estimates.
Mr. Harry Reid of the Scotsman, who is a splendid education correspondent, pointed out in one of his recent articles that the Government had said in 1975 that the total school population envisaged in 1985 would be 1,042,000. In May 1976 that figure was down to 845,000 and in November 1976 it was 929,000. That is a difference of about 150,000, which is enormous. Taking the 1986 projections, in 1975 the Government said that they thought the figure would be 1,047,000. In 1976 they thought it would be 925,000—over 100,000 down. We are dealing with projections which no one can prove. This is a dangerous basis on which to go ahead and propose the closure of four great Scottish colleges.
We are also concerned that the Government's calculations have not made provision for educational advance in some areas where we feel advance will be necessary and desirable. For example, we think that there is certainly a strong case for


making provision for a lower pupil-teacher ratio in the deprived areas, which for a long time have been suffering from a shortage of teachers, which has given rise to part-time education. It is pretty certain, although we do not know, that the Pack Committee, which is looking into truancy and indiscipline, will recommend such a proposal. We want to ensure that there is some provision for this.
In his appalling Budget the Chancellor made one positive and sensible suggestion, namely, that additional resources would be made available for a crash programme to provide teacher training for more teachers of science and mathematics. I was shocked when the immediate reaction from the Scottish Office was that this would not apply to Scotland. I tabled a Question, which the Secretary of State answered on Monday, asking him how much of a difference this proposal would make to the Scottish colleges. He said:
I do not expect these measures to have any significant implications for my recent proposals."—[Official Report, 4th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 333.]

Mr. David Lambie: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear that in Scotland the Government will not allow non-graduate teachers to teach special subjects such as mathematics and science in the secondary schools? Is it not the policy of the Conservative Party in Scotland that non-graduate teachers will be allowed to teach graduate subjects in secondary schools?

Mr. Taylor: It is the policy of the Conservative Party, and it has always been the policy of a Conservative Government, that if the Chancellor has the money available for England and Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland should fight for at least a fair share of that money. That has not been happening. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he is the responsible Minister who sat there when the Chancellor put forward proposals to increase petrol tax, a provision which discriminates against Scotland. He sat in the Cabinet and agreed to the ending of regional employment premium knowing that it would do great damage to Scotland. We expect our Secretary of State to stand up for Scotland.
Our real objection is that the document does not provide any costings of alternatives. This is a major grumble. We tried to find out the facts. For example, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who has been helpful in this matter, asked on 14th February what was the net saving of the Government's proposals. That was a fair question. It is a question to which we all want to know the answer. How much do the Government think they will save as a result of these proposals?
In reply he was referred to a reply given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central on 31st January. I looked up that reply and found that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was referred to a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). When we look at the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West we are told that it is not possible to provide this information.
Therefore, we have three hon. Members searching for information being referred back to an answer to one, and in that answer we were told that it could not be done. For that reason, some colleges have themselves been trying to make their own estimates. I pay particular tribute to Dunfermline College, because it has been trying to work out for itself how much has been lost or saved.
In the Government's proposal we have a suggestion that Dunfermline College should be merged and moved to Dundee, which is surprising bearing in mind the annual cost of both colleges, on the latest figures, of £1,684 for Dunfermline and £2,701 for Dundee. But the Government's estimate of what it would cost simply to bring the colleges in Dundee up to the standard of Dunfermline on the PE side is £950,000, which is an awful lost of money, and that is simply to make sure that the PE facilities in Dundee would be the same—no better and no worse than they are in Dunfermline. This figure may be contested, but we have not got further figures.

Mr. Norman Buchan: That sounds a great deal of money, but it works out at about one-third of the cost of the house of the Managing Director of the Globtik


Venus firm, to whom the hon. Gentleman is parliamentary adviser.

Mr. Taylor: We are talking about something that is terribly important. I should be glad to have a personal wrangle with the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I suggest that he is aware that we are talking about something that is extremely serious and important, and I hope that he will take it rather more seriously than he has.
There are many who believe that, far from saving money, the Government will end up by having to pay more under their proposals. However, cost is not the only consideration in education. There are, in addition, compelling arguments for the retention of all four colleges. I take, for example, Craigie. It is the only college in the South-West of Scotland. It serves 370 schools. When I read the argument that it should be closed because it has a limited life, I find it rather surprising, bearing in mind that the college itself understood in 1964 that it was given a 60-year life-span.
We have Callendar Park, in Falkirk, which has a unique record of in-service training and which is located in an area of economic growth. We have Dunfermline College, which is a relatively new building and is the only physical education college for women. It was built at immense cost and is a relatively new building. Here there are special considerations, because all the indications are that, whereas there may not be a shortage of teachers for some considerable time to come, there is no doubt that PE women teachers have a higher wastage rate than normal, fewer return to work after marriage, there is increasing demand in primary schools, and certainly there will be a bigger demand for teachers in the recreation and leisure fields.
Craighlock hart is an important college to the Catholic community for the maintenance of standards of denominational education. We note a statement by the governors:
The governors strongly believe that, on Catholic religious and educational grounds, there must be a distinct Catholic teacher training establishment in the East of Scotland. By distinct' they mean an establishment the function of which is acknowledged as unequivocally that of training Catholic teachers in Scotland in premises and circumstances which are acceptable to the Catholic community.

Craiglockhart College of Education has become part of the whole life of the Catholic community. Frankly, in my view and in the view of most of those interested in these matters, it would be impossible to retain a separate identity if a merger took place.
I do not believe that it will be in the interests of Scottish education for teacher training to be concentrated in the big, city colleges at the expense of successful small colleges. Therefore, for this reason we call upon the Government and the Secretary of State to abandon their plans to produce new proposals that will set out how the necessary reductions in the student intake can best be achieved within the framework of the continued existence of the 10 existing colleges. Such a solution would be better for Scottish education, better for the local communities, and certainly better for co-operation in education.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept very substantial cutbacks in the number of people in the provincial colleges?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, indeed. Obviously, if we were to continue with the 10 colleges, it would mean a larger reduction in some of the big city colleges. Jordan-hill and Moray House are two clear examples.
I have made clear that the Secretary of State has gone too far, but there is no way in which we can avoid the fact that a major reduction in student intake—not as large as the Secretary of State has proposed, but certainly a major reduction—is required. If we were to continue the 10 colleges, there would be fewer students at those proposed to be continued under these proposals. Whether this is the right answer or the wrong answer, we are at least entitled to know more of the facts about the considerations involved. What extra cash would be involved if we went to 10 colleges instead of six? What extra cash would be involved under the Government's proposals?
The Government have put forward the wrong proposals. They have been rejected by Scotland as a whole. It is time for the Secretary of State not to be so intensely stubborn, as he has shown himself to be, but to show flexibility. Frankly,


if he insists on inflicting these plans, which have been rejected by all of Scotland, he will be doing a great disservice to Scottish education.
For that reason we call upon the House, as we called upon the Scottish Grand Committee, to reject the Government's proposals and to make it clear to the Secretary of State that he should go away, think again and produce more sensible and effective proposals.

4.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): In the concluding minutes of his speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) admitted and agreed that a very substantial reduction in the teacher training system in Scotland was required.

Mr. Hector Monro: We have always said that.

Mr. Millan: One may have been forgiven for not having noticed that the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, other Opposition Members have always said that.

Mr. Monro: Read it in Hansard.

Mr. Millan: A good deal of the debate has suggested that in fact there is some simple way of dealing with what is an extremely difficult problem. However, whatever one does in the way of final conclusions, there will have to be a substantial reduction in the teacher training system in Scotland over the next few years, and that has, for example, considerable implications for the staff involved. I shall come to that matter shortly.
First, dealing with the question of consultation, there has been an almost unprecedented amount of consultation on this particular document. I personally have had meetings with the Joint Committee of Colleges of Education—that is, all the colleges of education—the General Teaching Council, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church—last Friday—and, because I am well aware of the serious implications of my proposals for the staff of the colleges, I have had meetings on two separate occasions with ALCES, the Lecturers' Association. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has had meetings with representatives of various colleges, the teachers' organisations, the Education Committee of the Convention of Scottish Local

Authorities and the National Union of Students. In order that each college directly affected by the proposals for closure or merger should have the opportunity to discuss the detailed implications for them of these proposals, I arranged for my Department to have meetings with each of the boards individually. Therefore, there has been no lack of consultation.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Millan: I hope that I shall not be interrupted too frequently, because this is a short debate.

Mr. Canavan: My right hon. Friend said that he had consulted the staffs. Will he make clear whether he has also consulted the non-academic staffs, through, for example, trade unions such as the National Union of Public Employees, because the jobs of non-academic staff are also important in this respect?

Mr. Millan: I am not sure whether there have been meetings with the nonacademic staff, but they, as well as everyone else, have been perfectly free to make representations on this document. However, I agree with my hon. Friend.
I shall not announce decisions on this consultation process today. As I shall say a little later, I hope to do that reasonable soon now. What I want to do this afternoon is three things. I want first to make some comments on the result of the consultation, indicating some of the points which now seem to be generally accepted and others on which differences of view remain. Second, I want to say something about measures to deal with recruitment of teachers of shortage subjects. This is not a matter dealt with directly in my paper, but it concerns colleges of education and there have been recent developments about which I should like to say something to the House. Finally, I should like to indicate the stage which has been reached in the consideration of my paper and inform the House when I am likely to be in a position to announce decisions.
Let me start by saying something about what has emerged as a result of the consultation. The first point put to me is that the basic nature of the exercise now seems to be better understood. There


was some suspicion at the beginning—and the hon. Member for Cathcart attempted to stir it up again this afternoon—that my proposals found their origin solely in a desire to reduce public expenditure, and that they were nothing more than another example of public expenditure cuts. I think most people now understand that the origin of the proposals was not financial, but demographic—relating to matters of population.
My proposals originated in an attempt to deal with the implications for the schools and the teaching profession of the great reduction in the birth rate, which is now at its lowest level since we started keeping statistics. It is the lowest birth rate since 1855. There is now a general willingness to accept that we ought not to train more teachers than will have a reasonable expectation of a job when they qualify, otherwise we are merely training people for unemployment. That is the harsh reality of the situation.
The consultation has shown other points on which there is general agreement. Again, despite a good deal of hullaballoo about the figures, there has been no serious challenge of the figures of projected pupil populations in the years ahead by the colleges themselves—and I have met every one of them—or by the lecturers, whom I met as recently as last Friday.
If I might now deal with the point about pupil projections, the figures in my paper assume an increase in the number of births as from next year. The paper does not assume a continuing reduction in the number of births in Scotland. If I were to do that, the projections of school populations and the problems with which we are dealing would be even more serious, but for good demographic reasons—which I shall not explain in detail—I am assuming that as from 1978 the number of births will rise again.
Let me give some figures to show what has happened to the birth rate. The figure of 104,000 births in 1964 was down to 65,000 in 1976. I am assuming that over the next few years that figure will go up to 85,000 by 1985. If that does not happen, if the number of births remains stable or even goes down, we

shall be faced with very much smaller pupil numbers in schools than I have assumed in my document, and the problem with which we are dealing will be considerably greater. The fact is—and I want to emphasise this—that there has been no serious question by anybody concerned of the pupil projection figures.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend say how it is possible to assume how many children will be conceived during the next few years?

Mr. Millan: No one can be certain on these matters. These are the Registrar General's figures, but let me give another figure, because my hon. Friend is interested in the Roman Catholic aspect of the problem. The birth rate among Roman Catholics has gone down more rapidly in the last 10 years than has the birth rate in the rest of the community. According to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the birth rate in the Roman Catholic community is little different from that in the rest of the community, whereas 10 years ago there was a tremendous difference between the two. Therefore, again it is not true to say that the figures that I have produced are open to serious challenge. We have found that this tremendous reduction in the number of live births in Scotland produces problems for us when considering teaching.
Another point on which there seems to be fairly general agreement is about the intake to colleges proposed for this year. This is one aspect of my proposals which I need not go over in detail, but with the reduction in intake last year, and the reduction proposed this year, the problem of falling student populations in the colleges is with us immediately. It is not something that will happen in 1985.
There seems also to be general acceptance of the need for some reduction in staff, and the hon. Member for Cathcart did not dispute that. The extent to which redundancies, as distinct from natural wastage, are required is a matter on which some differences of view remain, but the need to make full provision for any staff who do become redundant is acknowledged everywhere, and my proposal to make Crombie terms of compensation


available has been widely accepted. I hope that much of the problem can be dealt with on the basis of voluntary redundancies.
I come now to some of the criticisms, which seem to fall under two broad heads. The first allegation is that the proposals do not make enough provision for improvements of various kinds—in standards of staffing in the schools, in teacher training in the sense of the introduction of a four-year primary degree, in a sufficient increase in in-service training for teachers, and in sufficient acknowledgement of additional work that the colleges could usefully undertake.
The second main point of criticism is that if sufficient allowance were made for the additional work that would fall on colleges as a result of employing more teachers in the schools, of increasing the length of training of these teachers, and of doing more in-service training there would be no need to consider any closures or mergers, because any temporary slack in the next few years would soon be taken up.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Millan: No I shall not, because I have given way enough.
I should like to say a few words about the criticisms to which I have referred. First, there is an educational justification for my proposals. It is, briefly—if the House wants an educational justification—that the existing policies and assumptions about teacher training to which we have been working in the last few years have not been shown to be in any way defective or to produce inadequate teachers. I put this point specifically to the General Teaching Council when I met it, and received the answer that I have conveyed to the House.
My proposals are based on the philosophy that, subject to one important proviso, existing policies in teacher training be maintained. The proviso is that the provision already being made for in-service training of teachers should be extended, particularly the contribution that the colleges can make to in-service training in the schools themselves.
My proposals make allowance for that, although it ought to be remembered that

so far as in-service training takes place in the schools rather than in the colleges, it reduces rather than increases the demand for college accommodation. In-service training in the schools has gone up rapidly in the current session, so that in the second term of the current session there are no fewer than 420 schools in Scotland where in-service training is being provided by the colleges in the schools themselves. My proposals make allowance for that.
I must also make it clear that the existing pupil teacher ratio is, in my view educationally sound, and again I have not had very much opposition to that proposition. An overall improvement in these ratios beyond the substantial improvement that we have made in recent years cannot, therefore, in my view, in present circumstances, be an educational priority.
On the second question, that of the number of colleges that we require, one comes into territory where differences of view can perfectly validly be taken. I have told the House that I cannot yet say what decisions I shall reach, but there are two obvious general points that I make on that.
First, can a system that was designed to function in a society in which there were more than 100,000 births a year reasonably be maintained at a time when the number of births has fallen to not much more than 60,000 a year, and when we know that, even allowing for an increase in births, a much reduced system could cope with the demand until the end of the 1980s?
Secondly, granted the rundown in student intakes—which everyone seems to accept—and even allowing for some expansion of college activity, especially in in-service training, there is no conceivable way in which we can use the full capacity of all the existing colleges over the next few years. None of the proposals put to me has suggested that there is any way in which the whole capacity can be used, and therefore if all 10 colleges were to remain open and not be used for other purposes there would be a considerable amount of unused capacity that could be used sensibly for other purposes.
I shall not deal with individual colleges today. I have received representations—and some of them have been very


impressive—on behalf of individual colleges. However, to take up the point that was made about Craiglockhart, let me tell the House that there is nothing in my proposals that in any way attacks the principle of the 1918 Act for Roman Catholic education. I had an amicable and useful discussion with the hierarchy only last Friday on the whole question of Roman Catholic teacher training.
I turn now to the shortage subjects referred to by the hon. Member for Cathcart.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has the Secretary of State asked his office to look into the possibility of reducing the student intake and maintaining the 10 colleges? If he has costed that possibility, will he give the House and those whom he is consulting his conclusions?

Mr. Millan: It is possible to keep any number of colleges with a good deal of unused capacity. I have doubts about whether that is sensible, given the need for public expenditure constraints in the next few years and given that any college that we closed or merged would be available for other useful purposes, educational or otherwise.
Our main concern in recent years has been to increase the number of teachers generally. We have also been concerned about the availability of teachers in particular subjects. Far from nothing being done, I asked the colleges of education last year to weight their intakes in favour of shortage subjects. We do what we can—and I hope to do more this year—to let pupils in schools and universities know more about the opportunities for teaching in those subjects.
My Department was involved in proposals for a new form of training for teachers of technical subjects at Hamilton College of Education and Bell College of Technology which I am sure would have increased the supply of such teachers. I was disappointed when those proposals were not accepted by the General Teaching Council.
In recent weeks, we have told both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the General Teaching Council—the latter at my meeting with its representatives on 28th February—that I should

like to discuss with them arrangements for improving the supply of secondary teachers in the shortage subjects. I was already taking action on that before my right hon. Friend's statement in the Budget. I also discussed it with College heads at the beginning of March. I asked my Department to carry out a detailed analysis of the supply of teachers by subject based on information submitted by headmasters during the 1976 census. That information is now available and will be published soon. I can, however, give the House some information about the general picture.
There has been a great improvement since the 1975–76 session. At the beginning of this session, there was only one area in which there was an overall shortage of any significance—that of technical subjects in which there was a net shortage of 63 in Scotland, compared with 137 in the previous year. There were smaller shortages in physics and business studies. The supply was adequate or in excess in all other subjects. That included mathematics, in which a deficit last year of 153 was eliminated so that this year there is a net surplus of nine.
I emphasise that those are overalll figures. There are some shortages in particular schools and regions. In Strathclyde, for example, there is an overall shortage not only in technical education, physics and business studies, but in mathematics and art. On the basis of that detailed information, I propose to discuss the situation with the bodies that I have mentioned.
The impression was caused last week that the Chancellor was referring only to England and Wales. That is not true. Our discussions in Scotland must take account of three particular points on which there are substantial differences north and south of the border. The first is the general pattern of teacher supply in shortage subjects. We must take account of the particular Scottish problem.
The second is that our arrangements in Scotland for training teachers are different from those in England and Wales. It is fair to say that our training is more rigorous. Teachers in secondary schools in Scotland, although not in England, must have a specific qualification


in a particular subject. It is, therefore, easier in England and Wales to convert from one subject to another and to arrange conversion courses for that purpose. It is not my wish, and I am sure that it is not the wish of the House, that we should reduce our standards of training in Scotland. I want to maintain our standards. In addition, we have a General Teaching Council which looks critically at any proposals for changes in training arrangements. Whatever we do must be approved by the council.
The third difference concerns organisation and finance. Most teachers in England and Wales are trained in establishments administered and financed by local education authorities. In Scotland, they are trained in colleges of education which derive all their income, apart from fees, from central Government. There are considerable differences, therefore. Taking them into account, I intend to see that special efforts are made to encourage and improve recruitment in the shortage subjects. I shall be entering into further detailed discussions with the colleges and other interested bodies with that in mind. I hope that that puts the record straight.
Finally, I wish to indicate the position that has been reached in consideration of my paper and the action to be taken. The consultation period is almost over. At least, no more meetings are in prospect with any of the interested parties. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that the paper was sent to the bodies representing the non-academic staff. I am not aware of any complaints that anyone who was interested has been denied a full opportunity to comment.
I have no more major meetings planned with the interested parties, but I shall take full account of any points made in the House today or at any time in the next few weeks. I have given that assurance to those whom I have met. Most of the meetings have been constructive. It is not true that we have not been impressed by them nor that our ideas have not been changed in any way by arguments made during the consultations. I shall take everything into account before I reach a final decision.
In the next few days, I propose to lay before the House regulations authorising the Secretary of State to give directions

to colleges about the number of students to be admitted. That allows the statutory procedure to take its course. Draft regulations about Crombie compensation will be circulated to interesed bodies later this month and, in due course, regulations will be laid before the House.
I hope to make a full statement, probably in the early part of May, about the results of the consultation on my paper. It will deal with intakes to colleges in the autumn of 1977 and the question of closing or merging any colleges. At the same time, colleges will be sent a proposed breakdown of the total intakes between colleges. After they have had an opportunity to comment, the firm figures for each college will be set out in formal directions.
I understand the uncertainty of the boards of governors, the principals and staff at all levels—including the nonacademic staff—and the students at the colleges concerned. For that reason, I want to reach conclusions as rapidly as possible. I repudiate the suggestion that there has not been adequate and genuine consultation on the proposals. We are dealing with an extremely difficult problem. There are different ways of producing solutions, but the problem is still there.
There has been a process of consultation and, in coming to a decision about the colleges, I have had uppermost in my mind that we must achieve a balance between supply and demand for teachers, in fairness to those who wish to enter teaching. The worst possible outcome of the consultation would be a system that took in more students than reasonably could be accommodated in the schools. If that happened, young people would be trained for careers which they had no prospect of following. We have had a genuine process of consultation. I shall give my conclusions as soon as possible.

5.20 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful for the opportunity to put the case of the Dunfermline College of Physical Education. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Secretary of State. If he is to take his decisions early in May, I expect he will take them immediately after the local elections. The electors of Scotland are bound to take account of the possibilities that may occur.
The matter of Dunfermline College was raised in a very significant letter from the Scottish Physical Education Association about the proposed merger between Dunfermline and Dundee Colleges. The Scottish Physical Education Association confirmed that on 15th March its executive committee met senior officials of the Scottish Education Department to discuss the proposed merger. The association writes:
During that meeting it became clear that if the suggested merger went through the opportunities for female students to study physical education would be severely restricted in comparison with opportunities for male students at Jordanhill College.
The association bases this conclusion on two major points. The first is that it claims that the men at Jordanhill have exclusive use of purpose-built specialist facilities other than the swimming pool. I might add that there are two swimming pools at Jordanhill. Secondly, the facilities at Jordanhill are infinitely superior to those at Dundee and they match Dunfermline's facilities.
In its letter, the association also claims:
The facilities at Dundee are of such a poor nature that the Scottish Education Department would require to spend £1·5 million to bring them up to the necessary standard. One of the major reasons for the proposed merger was a saving in costs; therefore we feel it is unlikely that the Department would sanction the expenditure required thereby further disadvantaging female students of physical education.
In other words, if this college does move to Dundee to do the job properly and to bring the facilities up to the same standard as those existing at Jordan-hill and Dundee, the Department would need to spend about £1·5 million. This improvement would take three years to complete, and it would involve great upheaval. The Department cannot justify this at a time of great financial stringency. If the Government intend to transfer Dunfermline College to Dundee without upgrading the facilites, this will be savage discrimination against women teachers of physical education who will have infinitely worse facilities than their male counterparts at Jordanhill.
The Scottish Physical Education Association argues:
We believe that female students of physical education will be seriously restricted in their opportunities to study physical education if the proposed merger proceeds.

The possibility of discrimination is so serious that the full facts and circumstances of the case have been reported to the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The fears of the association are reinforced by answers to Parliamentary Questions given by Scottish Ministers. The Secretary of State has not consulted the Equal Opportunities Commission, and he claims that he sees no need to do so. Our inquiries have revealed that at no stage before the drafting of the consultation document were any of the specialists in physical education working in the Civil Service in Scotland consulted.
The Secretary of State refuses to do any costings or feasibility study on the cost of specialist facilities and residential accommodation. The Scottish Office says that it is premature to estimate the cost of any decisions or the time required to implement them. I can only take that to mean one thing—that the Secretary of State makes his decisions first and does his costings and feasibility studies afterwards. Surely it is not possible to have an effective and meaningful consultation in the absence of feasibility studies and costings.
Everyone at Dunfermline and Craiglockhart Colleges knows that no Scottish Office Minister has ever explained what is mean by the merger. In a Parliamentary Answer, a Scottish Office Minister said:
I do not consider that a Ministerial visit to any of these colleges would be necessary or appropriate."—[Official Report. 28th February, 1977; Vol. 926, c. 4.]
It is extraordinary that Scottish Office Ministers are forbidden to visit colleges in Scotland—the land of their birth. Why are Ministers not allowed to visit a women's college? Does the Secretary of State think the female of the species is more deadly than the male? However great his dread of coming into contact with women's colleges, it is a plain and unmistakable fact that no Scottish Office Minister can know that Dunfermline College is the most outstanding college of its kind anywhere in Western Europe. He cannot know this because he is not allowed to visit it if the annual intake were cut back the college would still be a viable unit.
The Secretary of State was incorrect when he said that the spare capacity of


the college could not be used. It can be used to great advantage by offering it to the Scottish Sports Council. Only yesterday I had a full conversation with a representative of the Scottish Sports Council, who said that the Council would be delighted to enter discussions and investigate the possibility of using surplus facilities if the college's intake were cut right down. By giving such encouragement to a centre of excellence, the Government would be giving great benefit to both the Scottish Sports Council and sport in Scotland generally.
All the evidence suggests that there is no case whatsoever for transferring the college to Dundee. Such a merger would cost £1·5 million which cannot be justified at a time of financial stringency, or, on the other hand, the merger would involve savage discrimination against Scottish women physical education teachers and do great harm to women's sport in the country. Either way, Government policy is rotten and it does not deserve to endure.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: At the outset, I want to agree with the Secretary of State on one point—I do not think that any major challenge has been made to the figures he has quoted on future births or requirements for teachers.
Many hon. Members on both sides might cavil at one or two subsequent assumptions, but I take the view that it is right to say to students that so many jobs can be guaranteed and if others wish to qualify as teachers they may do so at their own risk. I do not believe that it is always right to regulate the entry to colleges on the assumption of guarantee of jobs at the end of the day.
The wastage rate of teachers may change when the economic situation alters. The number of teachers needed may alter if future Governments take a different view of the ratio of teachers to students. These things may change, and to tell a student that he or she may not have teacher training qualifications today and may not enter the profession for the subsequent 50 years of his or her working life is a very different thing from telling the student that he proceeds at his own risk.
Some of us want to see teacher training as a broad education that is pro-

vided generally, similar to law and medicine, without a guarantee that a job will be available at the end of the course I am not happy with the assumption of fine tuning of the flow in and out of the colleges to the precise proportion of current jobs that are available at the end of the day.
I take the point made by the Secretary of State that even if he conceded this and allowed students to proceed at their own risk, it would not preponderantly alter the way in which we need to consider the use of both Scottish and national resources in teacher training at a time when the rate of births has altered so in Scotland. I do not think that there is any great future in asking whether the Scottish Office should have considered this matter a few years ago, before it authorised the building of Dundee College, which it now appears was unnecessary.
That is beside the point. What are the alternatives facing the Government, and how can they best resolve the tricky and unpleasant problems with which they are faced? We come to the question of the options and choices open to them. Consultation worthy of the word is possible only if the alternatives and the Government's thinking are put to people. My right hon. Friend says that there has been total consultation, because he can rattle off a list of bodies or agencies to which he has talked. That gives no evidence of consultation. Consultation is something more satisfactory. My right hon. Friend presumably thinks that he has had consultation in the House, when he refuses to allow me to ask a question in the middle of his speech.
I met the four principals of the colleges threatened with merger or closure as they came out of one of the consultations with my right hon. Friend. They came straight to Moray House and saw me. In a sense they have been consulted, but that was not the impression that I gained from them. They had been told. They had been given no insight into my right hon. Friend's thinking. They put to him in great detail that if the closures were to be carried out for economic reasons a certain set of options would arise. My right hon. Friend said in his speech, as he has said before, that this is a demographic exercise and not an economic exercise. I am glad to hear it, but if


that is so the reduction in the numbers for teacher training means that spare resources are available which are at present under-utilised. In that case, the options open to the Government are not merely the closure of certain colleges but include the utilisation of those resources for other educational purposes. That has not been considered.
All that we have been told is that there is provision within the existing proposals for the continuation of the existing level of in-service training. But all of us who have been connected with Scottish education know that one of the great steps forward we could take, one which other countries have taken, is to tell all teachers that after they have been out of training for, say, seven or 10 years they can go back to the colleges for a sabbatical term or a sabbatical year, not the weekend course or week's course for which my right hon. Friend has allowed now, but something much more satisfactory.
I have been bothered over the years—like a number of hon. Members, I think—about the level of language teaching in the Scottish schools. One of the main reasons why our boys and girls do not come out more fluent in foreign languages is that many of the people teaching them learnt their foreign languages many years ago and obviously have had no practice in their use for a number of years. Nothing would be better than for those teachers to go back for a period of instruction or a refresher course in teaching.
Some hon. Members may not have spent 13 years in teaching, as I have. Those who have will know that one of the problems is that one dries up. One gives out and gives out and does not take in.

Mr. Millan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mackintosh: It becomes repetitive and a little boring, as my right hon. Friend knows. I can see that I have struck a chord with him. One bores and bores, as he is well aware. One becomes a positive artist in boring people. That is not of the essence of teaching. A refresher course enables one to invigorate and excite students.
If my right hon. Friend is serious in saying that the closures are nothing to do with financial economies, any consul-

tation should have considered the options open to the colleges or other forms of education. My right hon. Friend must accept that in his consultations he did not give that impression. He told the principals that several millions of pounds would be saved. He did not specify how. One of his Under-Secretaries carelessly left his speech, written for him by the Scottish Office, lying on the Bench in the Grand Committee. It was picked up by one of his colleagues, who said that the costing showed £750,000 saved. That was duly read out in the Grand Committee, but it was not supported or carried any further. Until we know whether this is a financial or an educational exercise, no proper consultation is possible.
Let us take what my right hon. Friend says at its face value and accept that there is no financial element. Even then there are alternatives. If we consider the need to cut down the number of teacher training places, at least four options become obvious. One is to close the colleges along the lines suggested in my right hon. Friend's document. The second is to cut the numbers in the big city colleges and keep the smaller colleges open, on the ground that small colleges have special merit in geographical areas where contact is needed between the colleges and the schools and pupils. The third is the closure of one college in particular, the one least utilised and most expensive—the Dundee College—and a certain amount of slimming down in the city colleges.
A fourth possibility, one which would have meant real consultation, was for my right hon. Friend to tell the education authorities and the principals These are my targets, gentlemen. Will you devise among yourselves a proposal to meet them and suggest to me how this can be done with the least damage to the education system in Scotland?"
What in fact happened in the so-called consultations was that my right hon. Friend—having produced a consultative document without costings, without an explanation of what mergers would mean and without an explanation of how they could be done or where the residential places would be provided—stonewalled and defended his document for hour after hour against questions, criticism and requests for information from the


people he was seeing. That is not consultation.

Mr. Millan: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Mackintosh: That was the view expressed by the people who met my right hon. Friend, and it is very similar to the view in this House. When I wanted to ask for information my right hon. Friend refused to give way and allow me to make my point. He has only himself to blame if he gets this kind of reaction. If he is not willing to give way to hon. Friends raising a simple point of information, we must assume that that is his attitude when he is consulting people from outside, and if that is so he has no one to blame but himself if he acquires a reputation for being stubborn, difficult and unhelpful. He can shrug his shoulders, but that is what happens if he is not prepared to give way and answer questions from his hon. Friends.
If my right hon. Friend wishes to carry the whole proposal any further, if he wishes to have any plausibility in education in Scotland, he must make clear whether financial considerations have any importance. If they have, a whole different set of criteria come into play. If they have no importance, and if the matter is only demographic, as my right hon. Friend insists, the following question arises: which is the better pattern of teacher training—10 relatively small colleges or three very big ones and three half-sized ones, with closures elsewhere?
Serious discussion of that sort has not taken place. There has been no possibility of discussing it, given the curious idea of a consultative document that produces one proposal, does not cost it and does not explain the thinking behind it, and then stonewalls. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend must understand that those of us who are not particularly concerned about the political aspect but who are concerned about the future of education in Scotland are not prepared to support him.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall be very brief. If I bore in any way, at least I shall be boring briefly.
I feared that this might be a re-run of the Grand Committee debate on 15th

and 16th February, and to an extent it has been so far. But after the passing of six or seven weeks one could easily have expected answers to a number of questions in that debate. What alarms me most about the whole process—and I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said about consultation and the form it takes—is that not only have answers not been given to a whole number of questions but they have not even been attempted. If the purpose of Parliament is to scrutinise the doings of the Executive, how can it do that if the Executive refuses to give any answers?
I raised three main matters in the debate on 15th February. The first was the question of the financial logic. I asked whether what was proposed would mean a saving. That question was asked by others and was repeated today by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). No answer has been given. How can one reasonably evaluate the proposals in economic terms if one does not know the answer to that question? Our criticisms might be invalid. The Government should be able to say "There will be a saving of £X million, and you are talking nonsense."
Secondly, what is the statistical base? The Secretary of State said in effect this afternoon "Our statistics are super." Yet when I spoke on the last occasion I gave a single example—although other hon. Members gave many other examples. The primary population for 1980–81 that was forecast in the March 1970 White Paper was 518,300, yet today the forecast is 534,000. That is a difference of nearly 16,000 in forecasts of children who are already born. They already exist. It is not a matter of making suppositions about whether or not fecundity will improve, because they actually exist. If the statistics are as dubious and doubtful as that something may well be seriously wrong. If one looks at the history of the Scottish Education Department—and this was referred to a few minutes ago—in many cases there has been late provision of school facilities. The SED does not have a good statistical record.
There is also the matter of educational logic. I do not understand on what basis the Secretary of State asserts almost as Holy Writ that the present teacher-pupil ratio is educationally sound. That is a


matter of great dispute and not a matter of fact at all. I should have thought that the general educational thinking is that the smaller a class is, the easier it is to teach and for the pupils to learn. There is much truth in that, but I find that it is brought into question.
There is also the matter of the regional consequences and the effect on in-service training—which the Secretary of State ducked today—because there is much evidence to suggest that if an educational college is removed from a region to further abroad, the amount of in-service training in that region drops. According to the White Paper proposals 51 per cent. of students will be trained at two large colleges in the centre.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We also believe that if in-service training facilities are moved away from schools, costs, such as those for travel, also increase.

Mr. Johnston: That is perfectly true, and it is a fair point.
There is also the matter of the life and use of buildings that will be made redundant. We have heard nothing about that. The plain fact is that in the past the Scottish Education Department has been wrong and many people do not entirely trust its calculations. Therefore, the argument that many people have made recently for establishing some sort of teachers training commission or Select Committee or something of that kind to look at the whole question, while holding the status quo, becomes increasingly attractive in itself. It would also be a better opportunity than seems possible in the House of evaluating whether the Scottish Education Department is right in its proposals.
No sound educational or economic arguments have been advanced to justify these proposals. I say that flatly because the Secretary of State, in the latter part of his speech, went through the various bodies that he has consulted. There was a long, formidable and impressive list. He did not indicate that a single one of any of the bodies that he has consulted agreed with these proposals—not one of them.

Mr. Millan: As I said in my speech, college intakes is the immediate question to be decided this year and there has

been no real disagreement at all. The matter that we are now debating is how one should distribute the reduced number of students among a lesser or greater number of colleges. On these other matters there is no serious disagreement.

Mr. Johnston: With all respect, a White Paper has been produced because of recognition of the fact that there has to be a reduction in the number of students and because of the demographic arguments to which the Secretary of State referred. The White Paper was produced to make suggestions on how to deal with that. There was no disagreement on that proposition because that matter produced the White Paper in the first place.

Mr. Millan: A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) called the various figures into question. I have had all these consultations, and the figures on pupil projections that the hon. Member is disputing—for reasons that he has not produced to the House—have not been disputed by lecturers or the college principals. The process of consultation has been genuine and to suggest that no alternative uses have been discussed is absolutely erroneous.

Mr. Johnston: I say quickly in conclusion—because I promised to speak briefly—that I hope that, if the consultations were as genuine as the Secretary of State says, the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the opinions of all the people, not only in this House but in education in Scotland, who believe that this proposal to close a number of colleges is not generally acceptable.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen: We have already debated this subject twice in the Scottish Grand Committee and there have been several debates on the Adjournment. It would be understandable if some of us had a feeling of déjà vu in coming to debate this this afternoon. However, we have learned two interesting things.
The first was from the Secretary of State who clarified the fact that it really is a demographic argument and the second was from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who made it quite clear that rather than cutting out a number of colleges he would keep all 10 open, but that he would


severely prune the city colleges of education.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) will be replying to the debate tonight so I begin by giving him my congratulations—not on his consultative paper but on the fact that it is his birthday today.
I want to take a number of points up in detail. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on the matter of training people for the dole. I know what was in his mind, namely that it is better if a person receives a training. The difference between training people for teaching and training people for industry or commerce is that a governmental decision determines the intake and output in teacher supply whereas, by and large, market forces determine the intake and output of training for industry and commerce. I should not be happy about training people for the dole.
What concerns me about the consultative document is that there is too little evidence of what is intended by way of individual studies and the shortages that we know have plagued Scottish education in mathematics, science and technical studies. I am glad that the Secretary of State was able to explain a little more clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intentions regarding a boost to the training of teachers in mathematics and science. However, I really should like to have more information about the Scottish Education Department's assessment of how many teachers in the specialist studies we shall require in the foreseeable future. Otherwise it makes a nonsense of talking in global terms about student intake and subsequent teacher supply.
I wish to say a few words about the distribution of college places between the West, the East and the North-East of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), when he was Under-Secretary with responsibility for education, told me in September 1974 that about 56 per cent. of all college places were regarded as being within the West of Scotland. One of the problems for the former Glasgow education authority then was that it felt that there should have been a larger supply of

students from the West of Scotland who would subsequently teach in the city. The same consideration applies with equal, if not more, force to the Strathclyde education authority. We must ensure that there is a proper distribution of college places for future intakes.
The present Under-Secretary published a note towards the end of last year in which he mentioned his hopes fo educational priority areas. This is a matter that I have taken up with him in correspondence and interviews. It is a worthwhile concept, but I am trying to establish how it will operate in practice. I do not just want to see staff ratios increased in the stress areas; I want to see the teachers in the classroom.
We had quite a "to-do" last year over early retirement for teachers. All sorts of figures were floating around about the numbers that would be involved when we made it compulsory for teachers to retire at 65. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sorted out the SED's statistical department, because last year's episode was not a happy example of how we do our sums?
My hon. Friend will be aware of the consultative document issued by the Department of Health and Social Security on the four options suggested by the Equal Opportunities Commission in respect of earlier retirement for men or the prolonging of the active working life of women.
In the next five years, there may well be a reduction of the retirement age for men, perhaps to 64 or 62—I do not think that it will be to 60. This will obviously affect the teaching profession and, therefore, the subsequent intake. Has the SED been considering this problem? From what one hears from teachers in their late 50s and early 60s, there will be an almighty rush for the school gates if we introduce flexible retirement below the age of 65.
Turning to the number of colleges that are required, I and many other hon. Members have read the ALCES document and I know that the Minister has been given a copy. How is the Treasury investigation into the cost of college closures progressing? My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised this matter in an Adjournment debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) raised a point that I want to press home with the Minister. What is the position regarding the non-academic, behind-the-scenes staff in colleges of education? What guarantees will they get?
What is the present role of Her Majesty's Schools Inspectorate? When we were debating the college mergers and closures in the Scottish Grand Committee, there were several references to the fact that no visits had been paid to the colleges by appropriate members of the inspectorate. It may be that they work in a more subtle fashion, but if we are contracting the colleges of education sector, will some of the higher legions also be contracted, since, in theory overheads should go down if the production area is declining? Now that we have regional education authorities with all their advisers and the rest, they seem to be cutting across the work previously undertaken by the inspectorate.
I should like to question other aspects of the future of colleges of education. Are we satisfied that they provide the most appropriate prepratory training for teachers in the comprehensive school era? Are young would-be teachers getting the sort of training that is required for the classroom?
It would be useful to have figures of the wastage rates during college courses and in the years immediately afterwards, both within the cities, which have the main sress areas, and outside.
Are we convinced that we shall continue to have the present two-tier system of education with primary schools and secondary schools in a period of our history when young people are maturing much earlier, when the demands on education are changing greatly and when some teachers are not sure of their rôle in the classroom? Pupils and students now are also far more questioning and are not prepared to accept the sort of authoritarian attitude that has prevailed in the past.
I have been brief because I had the chance to speak in Committee. There has been considerable unease about the way in which the SED has gone about its business. It is up to Ministers to explain why things have worked out in the way

that they have during the preparation of the consultative document.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: The presentation of this consultative document has been one of the all-time disasters of the Scottish Education Department. Napoleon's retreat from Moscow was nothing compared with the handling of this situation by the Under-Secretary of State. It looks as though the hon. Gentleman has retreated not under gunfire but under points of order.
No one accepts the consultative document, particularly in the guise that it was presented to the Scottish nation. Of course, the White Paper produced by the last Conservative Government accepted that there would have to be a reduction in the intake to colleges of education. It also said there would be a much improved pupil-teacher ratio which, in fact, has happened. What it did not say was that the present Minister should increase the intake to the colleges in 1974–75. We are still awaiting an answer as to why he allowed that to happen.
A most interesting point was put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) about whether we have a duty to train a certain number of college entrants for the teaching profession for their own wish. They may want to teach abroad, or in England, or elsewhere. While I am not suggesting that this should be a large number, we must view this in the light of whether we would ever wish to restrict the number of entrants to universities, which I am sure we would not.
The major failure of this Government has been their refusal to give any indication of the financial implications. We hope that the Minister will come to grips with this tonight. If consultation means anything it surely means being frank with everyone including the House of Commons. We are entitled to know what the costs of the proposed closures are. I hope that the Minister will say something about the rôle of the inspectorate in this whole affair. How will the hon. Gentleman affect this reduction which we all accept is necessary? An overall 15 per cent. reduction on the present figure of 10,600 would get us back to about 8,000, which the Minister says is the necessary figure. If that were weighed


against Jordanhill and Moray House, which most people seem to agree are too large, we would not be far away from the figure that the Minister wishes to attain.
I accept that this would leave some spare capacity. But the Secretary of State and the Minister have not indicated what sort of use would be made of that spare capacity or what it would cost. This is all part of the consultation. The Minister must have some idea in his mind about what the spare capacity can be used for. I hope that he will tell us tonight.
I want to raise two particular issues. The first relates to Craigie College, which has a most important impact on my constituency. I have received a vast number of letters, all individually written, and all raising different points, from the staff and students in the college, from people in South-West Scotland and from the Roman Catholic hierarchy as well. It is most important to South-West Scotland because teaching practice stems from Craigie as well as research into curriculum development and accommodation. There is also the conference centre, which is so important to Craigie College, and the reading centre. All of that adds to the experience of teachers in South-West Scotland and to the quality of life in the area. Most important, Craigie provides the in-service training for teachers in South-West Scotland.
Again, with regard to Craigie, I hope the Minister will say something about the durability of the buildings. Anyone with any experience of the building industry is convinced that the buildings have at least a 60-year life expectancy. The Minister must not base his argument on the fact that there is a degree of temporary building at Craigie and that this may not survive for a sufficient length of time. That argument will not hold water.
I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the argument that it is important to have a college of education in an area where teachers are required. The argument which was put to me as a Minister frequently, and which I accepted, was that if we want to have more teachers in the West of Scotland—and we do—we must make certain that there are a large number of places in the West of Scot-

land for the pupils to come to. In 1973–74 we conceded that there would be an over-supply of teachers. In the first place that would have meant a cutback in the East where teachers were less urgently required than in the West. If we are to maintain our supply of teachers in South-West Scotland it is most important that we have a college of education to feed that area.
My second and final point relates to Dunfermline College. I speak with a particular interest in sport and recreation. In Dunfermline we have a quite outstanding PE college which is unique and unchallenged in Scotland and, inded, within the United Kingdom. It has had a great record since 1905 of producing women teachers of the highest calibre, many of them internationals and Olympic competitors. The college also has a record in music and dance unparalleled in Britain.
The Minister for Sport is going around the country trying to develop centres of excellence from which stem the high quality competitors and participants in sport in the generation ahead, yet here is a centre of excellence in women's sport which the Under-Secretary of State is doing his level best to close. The Under-Secretary must have a word with those who know something about sport because he is obviously woefully out of touch with what is going on not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom.
The consultative document says that Dundee appears to possess all the facilities for training. The Under-Secretary must be out of his mind if he allowed that statement to be published. He should listen to what his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been telling him week in and week out. Dundee has insufficient pitches for a college of physical education. There is an insufficient number of courts to play tennis and the gym needs major construction. Has the Minister gone on to the trampoline and hit his head on the roof? Has he discovered that the floor is not sprung for country dancing and does he realise that the swimming pool is far below the standard for international competition and training? Has he discovered that the changing facilities are woefully inadequate and that the residencies are 1½ miles away from the facilities?
The Minister cannot go on saying that there will be no drawback if Dunfermline is moved to Dundee. Does he also appreciate that Meadowbank and the Commonwealth pool are within a reasonable distance of Dunfermline College and are hopelessly out of touch with Dundee?
Rather than trying to maintain a high standard of women's sport in Scotland the Minister is doing his level best to destroy it by suggesting that we remove this high quality college from its present site. Does he not accept that at the moment Dunfermline College has 576 students, although it was built for 500? A reduction of 10 per cent. would have no major impact on the college being full or under-used. The Minister will have to bear all these points in mind and I hope that when he comes to wind up he will give the answers to hon. Members of this House who have every right to know but who have not been consulted in the true sense of that word.

6.9 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) who, rather than wishing the Under-Secretary of State a happy birthday, seemed to be inviting him to bang his head on the ceiling.
I have listened with some incredulity to what the Secretary of State had to say, because many of us hoped that the debate would be used as an opportunity for the Government to state their future intentions. There was not one crumb of hope held out to anyone who cares about Scottish education. All the arguments that were put forward following the publication of the consultative document were totally ignored, be they educational, economic, or demographic. Not one of those arguments was answered by the Secretary of State. We are not one bit further forward, except that we are told that we might have an announcement some time early in May.
One can assume, therefore, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), that if some hope is to come from that document, the announcement will be made on Monday 2nd May, but if it is a bad statement, we can expect it on Wednesday 4th May in view of the timing of the district elections. But I am sure that whenever the

right hon. Gentleman makes his statement it will not make one jot of difference to how the people in Scotland vote, because they have seen through this government and are determined to show their strength of feeling at the district elections, since they have been denied a General Election because of the Liberal pact with the Government.
I return again to the very important educational arguments, which have not been answered by the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State says that if we continue to have the same level of intake into our colleges, we are training people for unemployment. He still accepts that the present standards in our schools are the best that we can have and the best that we can expect from now on. We heard once more the argument that the pupil-teacher ratio is the best we have ever had and that there is no part-time education. That argument is educationally and statistically unsound.
First, anyone who knows anything about what goes not in Scottish schools know that the way in which these statistics are worked out does not reflect reality in the schools system. Administrative staff—teachers who have become administrators—and others are not taken into account in working out the ratios, with the exception of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. The method totally ignores those who, like careers masters or guidance teachers, spend a great deal of their time outwith the classroom but who are included in the working out of the ratios. It is unusual to find in a secondary school a teacher with only 15 pupils, unless it happens to be in a remedial department, where special considerations apply.
The same applies to primary schools, where we have the development of composite classes. In a new primary school in my constituency there are six empty classrooms, but the teachers are taking 33 pupils per class, as laid down in Circular 819. The headmistress's view is that if she could have the teachers, she could reduce class size and get rid of composite classes, which no one wants. Yet these are the standards that the Government accept.
The posts are available for teachers if we would only care to admit it. But the Government are not happy about


admitting that their statistics can sometimes be wrong. This week I had letters from lecturers saying that part-time education existed in other ways, such as earlier closing, or saving time both at the end and beginning of the day.
From this Labour Gvernment we have had no reference to the possiblity of compensating the deprived areas, which exist not only in West Scotland—although particularly so there—but elsewhere. Ministers representing such areas should be black ashamed of themseslves for not saying that the Government will give compensation to the children in them for the years of deprivation that they have suffered and their years of part-time education. It seems that they have no humanitarian concern for the children in those areas.
A reduction in standards has occurred under this Government. The standards in areas such as my constituency, which were fortunate and had a good pupilteached ratio, have been reduced by the Government's policy, because teachers were not replaced. Yet the Secretary of State is happy to say that this is the best we can expect. But Labour Governments usually adopt the lowest standard as being the best.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Surely the hon. Lady must be aware of the problem in the so-called deprived areas where there are too many pupils per teacher. Surely she must be aware of the problem of getting teachers to those schools. Does she think that, even if we increased the teacher numbers in Scotland, short of directing teachers to these schools, there would be any improvement in them?

Mrs. Bain: I accept the difficulties and that one cannot direct labour in the teaching profession any more than one can in any other work. But I know teachers in my area who would be willing to travel to some of the deprived areas if they were guaranteed that it would help the educational progress of these youngsters. But the jobs are not available in the deprived areas under the present standards laid down by the Government.
I return to the subject of the intake and pre-service training of teachers. I have visited four or five colleges of education since this consultative document

was produced. In each all the lecturers indicated that they would like to be able to spend more time with the students when the students are out in the schools training to be teachers, but because of the amount of work that is put on the lecturers, they cannot do so. We all know that the best place for learning how to teach is within the schools system. With the help of tutors there more often for longer periods, many of the problems of new young teachers could be ironed out at that stage.
The Secretary of State said that at no point had anyone ever conceded that lecturers had not been able to cope with the various divergent areas of education—the new processes, the new ideas. The Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland brought out a document early in this affair, indicating that lecturers had the feeling that they had not been able properly to prepare youngsters for end courses—for example, on such matters as the raising of the school leaving age and curriculum development. It admitted that the colleges had not helped the young people adequately. On that basis we can rule out the idea that, because we have a reduction in the number of students in the colleges, we can also get rid of lecturers.
I want to refer to the Bachelor of Education course. I noticed with some interest a month ago that, according to The Times Educational Supplement, the Advisory Council south of the border had recommended to the Department of Education and Science that there should be moves towards an all-graduate profession south of the border. Notre Dame College of Education lies in my constituency. It is not to have provision for a B.Ed degree, unlike other colleges in Scotland. The small provision that it has had is to be taken away, with the result that students who could have been offered the course will be turned down. Yet this stage in the education debate would be an ideal opportunity for the Scottish Office to introduce a four-year B.Ed degree course into all the colleges of education.

Mr. Dempsey: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the B.Ed Course being taken away from Notre Dame is bound to make that college less attractive to students in future?

Mrs. Bain: I could not agree more. That was one of the points put to me by the lecturers there. They are deeply anxious lest, taken in conjunction with what has happened at Craiglockhart, not enough Roman Catholic teachers will be trained to teach the Roman Catholic population.
I was saying that this would be an ideal time for the Scottish Office to consider the introduction of a four-year B. Ed. course in all the colleges, so that we could move towards an all-graduate profession. There would not necessarily be much greater expense, and it might not have to be met until about 1981, when, so we are told, we shall see the economic miracle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would also allow absorption into the education system of those teachers who are now unemployed. It would give a great deal of status to student teachers, who would like to see themselves take more courses and not just one or two.
We have heard the old argument about economics and saving money. I ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues "What price education?". Any savings made as a result of this ridiculous document will be at the expense of future generations of Scottish children. I cannot accept the flippant attitude of the Scottish Office towards the demographic argument—its idea that some years will be good years for the birth rate and that others will be bad, and that we should keep our fingers crossed. Are we to understand that the Secretary of State plans to bring out a consultative document frequently, depending on the birth rate each year?
Finally, I refer to a telegram that I received today from lecturers in Scotland saying that the
debate must put on the Westminster record what many Scots have thought for a long time—that the SED is incompetent in educational matters.
I endorse that view and hope that many of the points raised by hon. Members, including myself, both in today's debate and in previous debates, as to the effectiveness of the SED, will be answered by the Under-Secretary, since they were not answered by the Secreary of State.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: One of the biggest disadvantages,

among many, of our entry into the Common Market is that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is unable to be with us tonight. In an Adjournment debate four or five weeks ago my hon. Friend posed some very interesting questions to the Under-Secretary of State. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the answers. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will try to give an answer to some of the questions posed at that time, and also to questions put in the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.
When he is winding up the debate he should not pay too much attention to what was said by some of the Tory spokesmen. Frankly, I have never heard anything so hypocritical. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who is the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, claims that it is because of cuts in public expenditure that we are having to suffer all this injustice within the education system.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I did not say that.

Mr. Canavan: Yet it is obvious that if the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) were the Prime Minister, if the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the hon. Member for Globtik were the Secretary of State for Scotland, we should have to suffer cuts in public expenditure that would make even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer look like Santa Claus. We should be lucky to have even the remnants of an education system left in Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We do not know whether this is a cut in public expenditure. What are the savings, if any, of scheme A? What would be the savings of our schemes B and C? We have not been given the facts on which to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Canavan: I take that point and I hope that we can be given more financial information in the winding-up speech, but the hon. Member said that saving public expenditure was one of the main reasons behind the document, and he has suggested it openly elsewhere. It is a pity that he cannot substantiate this claim and propose better economic policies, because, if a Tory Government were in


office at the moment, it would be interesting to see what exactly they would do about diverting resources from unproductive things, such as defence, into more important things, such as education and the other social services.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will pay more attention to the voice of the Labour movement in Scotland—for example, to the constructive alternative suggestions made at the Scottish conference of the Labour Party in Perth. We did not just look at the document and condemn it negatively. We also put forward constructive alternatives.
We do not believe in training teachers for unemployment. I do not know whether I misheard the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), but I do not think that any teacher has at yet been paid off within the public sector of education in Scotland. I know that the Highland Region—which is Tory-controlled under the guise of "Independent"—tried to do that, but, fortunately, the EIS and the unions stopped it. Perhaps the hon. Lady would clarify what she said.

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman does not realise that in the Dunbarton division of Strathclyde those qualified teachers who taught part time were paid off irrespective of whether the school was to have an equivalent number of teachers in the following year.

Mr. Canavan: I am glad to have the hon. Lady's clarification—that it is part-time teachers. My information is that the part-time teachers were given the option of taking a full-time job or resigning. That is not the same as being given the sack.
However, I agree with what the hon. Lady said about the pupil-teacher ratio. It is not the best measure for judging teacher sufficiency or teacher shortage. It can cover a multitude of sins within the individual school situation. I hone that the Under-Secretary will bear that in mind. It is not enough to say that the pupil-teacher ratio is the best ever. My mother was taught in classes of 50 and I was taught at times in classes of 40. Now that we have got it down to just above 30, there is no room for complacency. We have not yet reached the optimum standard by any means.
A composite resolution was passed at the Scottish conference of the Labour Party. If the hon. Member for Cathcart, who is very fond of making seated interjections, had bothered to come to Perth, he might have got some education himself. At the conference we suggested ways of improving staffing standards in deprived areas, and we made suggestions about the extension of pre-school education, which is very important. We have almost had to abandon temporarily the pre-school building programme, and so it is more important than ever that we should try to use whatever manpower of womanpower there is available to begin educating children before they even go to school, and not just within the formal nursery school situation. Even in play groups children and parents could do with some of the help and advice of qualified teachers.
Another suggestion put forward at the conference referred to the extension of education for the mentally handicapped. Recently the convener of Strathclyde Regional Council, a good friend of mine, said that in Strathclyde part-time education had been ended completely. With respect to Geoff Shaw, that is not true. It appears from the reply that I have had from Mr. Burns, the deputy director of education in Strathclyde, that there are several hundred mentally handicapped children in Strathclyde having either part-time education or no education at all. This is one of the many important gaps in the education service throughout Scotland.
Another suggestion was for the extension of adult education, involving implementation of the Alexander Report. This would involve an additional 200 full-time staff, but the proposals would also mean a great many more part-time staff. Some of the staff, full time and part time, may already be in the education service. Some of them are in the universities, for example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who is a university teacher, is not here. I do not know whether he is a qualified teacher in a school. I know many university teachers who could do with a bit of training in what might be called the pedagogic skills necessary for teaching rather than just academic attainment.
Another suggestion was for the extension of in-service training for teachers, not just on a city-based structure but on a regional structure. This is very important in regard to Callander Park College and Craigie College to enable people in the regions to have access to training.
As for the introduction of a four-year degree course for all teachers, another suggestion made at the conference, I endorse completely what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said. I was very disappointed with the one word reply that I had to a recent Question asking the Secretary of State to undertake a reexamination of the case for a four-year Bachelor of Education degree for Scottish teachers in place of the existing diploma. The answer was "No"—full stop. There was no justification. No reason was given. Nothing further was said in reply. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, either today or at some future date, will give some education arguments in support of these one-word answers.
Lastly, the conference touched on the need for diversification of courses as part of a radical reappraisal of the whole of tertiary education in Scotland. There is a multiplicity of kinds of colleges in Scotland, and the colleges of education are only one part of tertiary education. We cannot look at the colleges of education in complete isolation from the rest of tertiary education, and I should like to see the colleges being encouraged to diversify. It is not enough to have colleges specialising or sub-specialising exclusively in subjects, no matter how important a skill may be—for example, physical education in Dunfermline College. All colleges should be encouraged to diversify and to build up resources in order to give a more comprehensive choice of subject and courses.
One subject not mentioned in the debate is the need to use whatever resources we have to help educate and train overseas students for teacher-training. I asked the Minister for Overseas Development a question about this last week and he said that the Government have in fact put some money towards education facilities for overseas students in this country. Would it not be possible to use some of the vacant places in the college structure in Scotland to her) under-developed countries?

Craiglockhart may be a small college, but it has done much in this respect, as befits a Catholic college. The Catholic Church is an international institution very concerned with under developed countries.
When a speaker from Craiglockhart College came to speak in my home town of Bannockburn, the college did not send an English, Welsh, or Irish spokesman; it sent a lecturer and a student from Sierra Leone. Perhaps that is some indication of the importance placed on the education of overseas students by that college.
I briefly wish to mention the subject areas in which there is still a shortage of teachers. The Government have been criticised for not taking advantage of the money raised by the Budget. I hope that the Secretary of State takes full advantage of any money mentioned in the Budget. No one seems to realise that there has been a mathematics conversion course in existence for the best part of a decade. As a former teacher of mathematics myself, I still have some contacts in this field, and when I did some research I found that in Dundee College of Technology, Stow College, Kirkcaldy Technical College, and Falkirk Technical College, there are, or were, in-service courses to enable students qualified as primary or secondary teachers to qualify in mathematics.
Unfortunately the college is thinking of abandoning these courses because of lack of applications. I do not know whether this is entirely a financial disincentive. It might benefit Scottish education if the Secretary of State could get his hands on some of the Treasury's money, advertise the shortage of applications, and get more students on such courses.
I ask him to suspend judgment on this document until he has studied all the evidence put to him. I plead with him to avoid any closures or hastily conceived mergers. I voted against the Government in the Scottish Grand Committee and, unless I receive a very encouraging response from the Under-Secretary tonight, I shall be very seriously tempted either to vote against again or to abstain.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for


Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made clear in the opening debate that there was no argument or disagreement on the Conservative side of the House about the view that a reduction in teacher supply in Scotland is inevitable. The difference turns on the question of how that reduction should be brought about and how the colleges should be asked to cope with the reductions in teacher supply and teacher training.
The Government believe that four of the 10 colleges should be closed. That is the effect of the Secretary of State's consultative document. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said, consultations have taken place, but these consultations leave us with the significant knowledge that no organisation or independent person has appeared from anywhere to support the Secretary of State's proposals.
We have tried hard to understand these proposals, not least to find out what financial benefits might flow from the closures—if that is the object—and what would be the implications for Scottish education. That was why we initiated the two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in February, one month after the consultative document was published. In that debate the Secretary of State stated and re-stated the problem. We do not deny that a problem exists.
On the final day the Under-Secretary of State treated us to what proved to be a series of personal disclaimers that the subject was one for which he had responsibility in any way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) took advantage of almost an entire Adjournment debate to entertain the House with his unique brand of filibustering, while again attempting to disclaim any personal responsibility. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies to this debate tonight we shall have a more serious approach from him. Although there seems to be some doubt about whether that Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) actually support the Government's proposals, there is clearly no evidence that they consider the matter an issue on which they should resign and, because of that, I think it all the more important that they should treat the subject with seriousness today.
We continued to press the hon. Member for Queen's Park, and on 7th March, in the debate on the Consolidated Fund, he assured us:
No final decision has yet been made on any particular college."—[Official Report, 7th March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 1045.]
Once again in this debate we are asking Ministers what consideration they have given to the education aspect of the question.
A number of hon. Members have already mentioned the four-year degree courses in primary degrees. I do not think that any satisfactory answer has yet been given on why the opportunity has not been taken to introduce them.
Extending in-service training was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackinosh). The whole question of in-service training is not just about how it has been done or is being done now. This is an opportunity for the colleges to give a new look to the whole question.
On the provision of additional teachers in deprived areas, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) mentioned a letter that the Under-Secretary issued on 24th December, a letter that seemed to be motivated more by the Christmas spirit than by any serious intention. I should like to know what action has followed that letter and what action he proposes to take following publication of the book that I received yesterday from the Scottish Education Department entitled "English for Slower Learning Children"—

Mr. Ian Campbell: Is that why the hon. Gentleman is reading it?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that this is a funny matter or that we should laugh at the misfortune of some children in Scotland who are struggling with an education system that is far from satisfactory. Section six of the book is concerned with working with slower-learning children. I shall read it slowly so that the slower-learning children here can understand it:
In no other teaching situation in a school is the relationship between the teacher and pupil so important. Upon it hangs not only the possible advances in the pupil's learning, but, just as importantly, his development as a happy and mature human being.


The book goes on—I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay attention, because it does not look as though he has had time to read the book yet—
If the class consists mostly of less able children, the numbers must certainly drop, and for work with children of the lowest ability, struggling with literacy, five or six should be the maximum. Slower learning children are so insecure that their first requirement is a stable one-to-one relationship with the teacher.
Surely, as the Under-Secretary's Department has pronounced on the subject and published this book and as there are discussions taking place about the future of education and pupil-teacher ratios in Scotland, it would be encouraging if we could be told that some consideration is being given in these consultations and in the final decision to questions such as these.
The reduction in teacher training places will not automatically put teaching applicants themselves on the dole, but many of them will take up places in further education colleges, thereby reducing the number of places available for ordinary school leavers, the least able of whom will have to join the queue of the unemployed. Just what will that do to the Government's grand plans for job creation?
I was particularly impressed by the reference of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian to the intake and to the fact that there should be some margin for those who are willing and able to train as teachers, although there might not be a guaranteed job at the end. The Minister should discuss that matter with the profession, if he has not already done so.
The shortages of teachers in specific subjects bring into question the competence of Ministers. Last week's Budget made provision in England and Wales for the retraining of teachers in maths and science subjects, but it seems obvious to any observer that Scottish Ministers were caught unawares by the announcement and that they cannot tell us today what share of the funds made available will be allocated to Scotland.
The Minister knows why he and the Secretary of State were caught unawares—because the Scottish Education Department, at least until today and with little

likelihood that that will be changed today, did not know what subject shortages existed among teachers in Scotland. That is entirely the fault of Ministers. I do not support those who say that the fault lies somehow with civil servants. If there is anything wrong with the way in which the SED is run, that is clearly the fault of Ministers and it is up to them to sort things out.
On 13th January I asked the Secretary of State for details of the shortage of maths teachers. He said that the information would be made available in a few weeks and that he would send the details to me. I heard nothing more, so on 24th March I repeated the Question, only to be told that the information would be published "shortly". Since then we have had the Budget and the statement that in England and Wales there is a need for 1,120 more maths teachers, 420 more physics teachers and 520 more teachers of craft and design.
I should dearly like to know how in England and Wales, which must have about 500,000 teachers, this information can be produced on demand, yet in Scotland, after months of asking, we still do not know the facts of teacher shortages. Why does it take so long to get this fairly straightforward information from Scottish Ministers?
It is no wonder that with that sort of track record there is little confidence in the ability of the Secretary of State and his Ministers to provide any useful information and make any worthwhile recommendations on teacher training in Scotland. He can hardly do that when he does not know what the problem is and what the shortages are. It is not surprising, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he has no intention of submitting a revised consultative document to Parliament. Clearly, the rigours of parliamentary scrutiny are far too much for the right hon. Gentleman and for his rather detached hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary.
In a letter to me dated 23rd March, the Under-Secretary said:
It is not the Secretary of State's intention to submit a further consultative paper to Parliament before reaching decisions.
Why not? Of course, one might ask what makes the right hon. Gentleman think that he will get it right a second or even a third time when he has made


such a mess of his first proposals to Parliament and the profession.
What have we learned today from the Secretary of State? Again, he stated and restated the problem. That is not a matter in dispute. He then said that existing policies in teacher training are all right and will be continued and that existing pupil-teacher ratios are all right. With respect, is that not just a little complacent in view of the evidence of dissatisfaction in Scotland about education standards?
The Secretary of State has again assured the Catholic population of Scotland that if Craiglockhart is closed, that will not be a threat to the 1918 Act. I am not a Catholic, but if I were, I would not believe him. If Craiglockhart is closed, Notre Dame will be terribly exposed and Ministers will be asking in the near future, "If the East of Scotland can manage without a Catholic college, why do we need one in the West of Scotland?"

Mr. Campbell: Shame.

Mr. Fletcher: There is no shame in that. That is a real fear. I would say to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) that I have taken the trouble to consult on this matter. I know that this fear exists.
Nothing is happening in Scotland in regard to maths and other teachers, and we must wait until May for any final conclusions from the Secretary of State. Scottish Ministers have made heavy going of this whole operation because the Secretary of State does everything himself. This is the biggest Scottish Office team that we have ever had, but it is by no means the best. The organisation seems to consist of a Cabinet Minister and five Parliamentary Private Secretaries. There is no proper delegation of authority and responsibility, so the Under-Secretary of State cannot act as he should act—as the Minister of Education in Scotland.
The trouble with that situation is that people start blaming the system of government and the constitution for Ministers' ineptitude. There is no solution to be found there, because the reason that we are in such a mess in education and with these colleges is simply that the Secretary of State and his colleagues

have done a rotten job on the question and look like continuing to do a rotten job. That is why tonight we shall force a vote to try to force some sense into the Government.

6.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher): he is not really a bad lad but he started off bad and then he fell away.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Give us some answers.

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that there was some doubt about the authority of the Secretary of State as regards his Ministers. Anyone who knows the situation in the Scottish Office and has had some Scottish Office experience will understand that situation, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) understands it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not understand it.

Mr. McElhone: Time does not allow me to go into all the points made this evening—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Here we go: try some.

Mr. McElhone: I shall not rehearse the arguments about the birth rate, the pupil-teacher ratio or the number of college places, but I should be wrong if I did not correct the record in view of the many misleading statements made tonight and in other debates about the use of colleges. Time permits only a brief comment, but I would mention the occupancy rate. Callendar Park has a 45 per cent. occupancy rate, at Craigie it is 49 per cent. and at Dundee 42 per cent. I hope that all those Conservative Members who keep talking about Dundee College will remember that it was started under a Tory Government. I hope that that will be borne in mind by those who criticise Dundee.
In terms of numbers, Callender Park has 900 teaching places and 404 students; Craigie has 800 places and 397 students; Dundee, built by the Tories, has 1,800 places and 753 students.
Everyone will accept that there must be a reduction. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Cathcart agree that there has to be a substantial reduction in student intake. That is different from his earlier statements—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—

Mr. McElhone: It is not untypical of the hon. Member, who is prepared to shift his ground on any occasion—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister allow me a second?

Mr. McElhone: —on any occasion—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Give us the quotation. Where is the evidence?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has got off to his usual abrasive start and is trying to disrupt the debate. Hansard will show that time after time, while I have been trying to give answers, he has been jumping in with totally irrelevant interjections. All I would say to the hon. Member for Cathcart is that he now leads a very mixed crew. There was the exercise that he held in the Grand Committee, when he brought out the Tory dinosaurs. The hon. Member tried to claim that it was a meaningful vote, but it was a vote that meant nothing.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) rose—

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry, time does not allow me to give way. I will deal with the comments of the Member for Edinburgh, North. He played a dangerous game in the latter part of his speech.

Mr. Fairbairn: Give us some information.

Mr. McElhone: I repeat, there is no risk to Catholic education in the West or East of Scotland. No one has done more for Catholic education than my right hon. Friend when he was Under-Secretary of State. I hope that we shall not go down that road again.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I do not believe the hon. Member.

Mr. McElhone: It is unscrupulous of the Conservative and Unionist Party to play the green card for political purposes.

As for subject shortages, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North obviously did not hear my right hon. Friend's speech. He gave the figures for subject shortages and explained that—well before the Budget—he and I had been considering this subject, in particular in Strathclyde, which is the only region with shortages in mathematics, technical subjects and physics.
There are unemployed mathematics teachers in the Grampian area and an excess of mathematics teachers in the Lothian area. Are the Tories suggesting that we should direct labour? I would love to be able to say to the teachers in the Lothian and Grampian regions "Go down and teach in Strathclyde."
The hon. Member for Cathcart knows the situation. Incidentally, I doubt whether the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has taken the opportunity of teaching in a deprived area. I would like to see her stand up and say that when she loses her seat, as she surely will, she will teach in such an area. The truth is that during our period of office in Glasgow Corporation all too often the teachers opted out of the deprived areas and went instead to other counties. We set up the Roberts Committee with a view to ensuring the provision of extra teachers to go into Easterhouses and other areas. We still could not get them.
I was delighted to receive a letter from Strathclyde's Director of Education thanking my right hon. Friend and me for our efforts in getting extra teachers into Strathclyde last year. We no longer have part-time education. There are now 800 extra teachers. I accept that there are subject shortages but for the first time in 25 years there is no part-time education.
I come now to the blatant hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. If I treat the Opposition in a frivolous fashion it is because they do not deserve to be treated seriously. They know that the only White Paper which they brought out on this subject during their period of Government said that they would need 25,800 primary teachers by 1975–76 and 27,300 secondary teachers by 1977–78. That is a total of 53,100 teachers—an ambitious programme. The then Tory Government said that after that they would have to stop employing teachers in Scotland.


Today, instead of 53,100 teachers there are 55,000 teachers. I am not taking that hypocrisy from the Conservative Party, which time and again pleads the case of the deprived areas yet makes no attempt to help them when it is in office.
It is all right for the hon. Member for Cathcart to go on complaining, but I warn the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, who is a nice fellow, that in taking Maggie's shilling he has taken on a dangerous crew and captain. All I got today—and I am sorry to be unkind—was the squawking of the parrot sitting on Long John Silver's shoulder. The only difference is that this particular Long John does not have a leg missing.
I address myself now to a former Minister in the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member for Dumfries slumbers away like an old political dinosaur. I cannot help quoting the story of the man who stood up—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Answer the questions.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McElhone: I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman. [Interruption.] The tragedy is that the SNP does not have a policy on education.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Has the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. McElhone: Once the SNP has a policy I shall consider its views.
I return to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. They know the extent of their hypocrisy when they claim to be concerned about the teaching profession yet have to admit that if they had been in office now the number of trainee teachers going into colleges would have long since dropped.
We have to accept that my right hon. Friend has gone through a meaningful consultative exercise. The tragedy is that the Tories do not understand consultation, as they learned only too well when

they butchered UCS and Rolls-Royce. They must understand that my right hon. Friend has carried out a meaningful exercise in consultation. All of those whom we have consulted are grateful for the time and care that has been taken in ensuring that all views have been considered before reaching a final decision.

Mr. Fairbairn: Mr. Fairbairn rose—

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps standing up but I cannot give way with about three minutes to go before the end of the debate.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has not said anything yet.

Mr. McElhone: All I want to say to a motley crew who keep on shouting is that until they come forward with an alternative strategy—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: We have.

Mr. McElhene: Tory Members should be peaceful and listen. My right hon. Friend has considered the views of everyone. The Opposition know that a delegation led by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), comprising Conservative Members and Members of other parties, came to see us. I heard the delegation's views. I have met people at the colleges. I have discussed this with Craiglockhart, Callendar and Dunfermline. I know the views of the colleges, as does my right hon. Friend.
It is no use the Opposition coming along with mere indignation. The people I speak to in education have no respect for the Conservatives. They must be honest and accept that if they were still in power they would have cut back teacher training long ago. That is in the Tory White Paper and it has never been challenged. [Interruption.] I am sorry that we get this tirade of abuse—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Resign.

Mr. McElhone: —each time a Government Minister stands up. The truth is that the Opposition do not want to hear the answers. They want only to make political capital out of the difficulties in education.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 185.

Division No. 103]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkins, Rt. Hon. H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Pardoe, John


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Penhallgon, David


Baker, Kenneth
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Beith, A. J.
Hannam, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Rathbone, Tim


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Blaker, Peter
Henderson, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bottomley, Peter
Holland, Philip
Rhodes James, R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bradford, Rev Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Peter
Jenkin, R. Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brotherton, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kershaw, Anthony
Sainsbury, Tim


Buck, Antony
Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shersby, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sillars, James


Carlisle, Mark
Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Channon, Paul
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Cockcroft, John
Luce, Richard
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cope, John
MacCormick, Iain
Steel, Rt Hon David


Costain, A. P.
McCrindle, Robert
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dean, Paul (N. Somerset)
McCusker, H.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dempsey, James
Macfarlane, Nell
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Drayson, Burnaby
MacKay, Andrew James
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mackintosh, John P.
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt. Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Emery, Peter
Mates, Michael
Thompson, George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mather, Carol
Townsend, Cyril D.


Eyre, Reginald
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Trotter, Neville


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop. Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wakeham, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Moate, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Watt, Hamish


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Fox, Marcus
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Welsh, Andrew


Freud, Clement
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S.)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Hon. Peter (Chester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Goodhew, Victor
Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Newton, Tony



Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Jim Lester and


Grieve, Percy
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Peter
Bates, Alf
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Atkinson, Norman
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman




Buchanan, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Rodgers, Rt Hon W. (Stockton)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Rowlands, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ryman, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C.)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cowans, Harry
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Cronin, John
Lamble, David
Small, William


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stott, Roger


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Duffy, A.E.P.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Torney, Tom


Edge, Geoff
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Urwin, T.W.


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, John
Watkinson, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
White, James (Pollok)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshwe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Gilbert, Dr John
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pavitt, Laurie



Hatton, Frank
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Seven o'clock.